Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Uhlmann v. Wren

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1965No. 8243Published

1Concurrence

YALE McFATE, Superior Court Judge

(specially concurring) :

I concur in the majority holding that the District may lawfully construct the lines in question. However, I disagree with the reasons stated for such holding and I concur with the opinions expressed by Justice Bernstein that the exchange power to be transmitted over the petitioners’ lands is not “surplus” power within the meaning of § 45-903, subsection A, paragraph 7 A.R.S.

I am unable to concur with either the opinion of the majority or with that of Justice Bernstein as to the status of the District in relation to its power activities…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power DistrictArizona Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power DistrictArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Project Agr. Improvement & Power Dist.Arizona Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Gardner v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API