Bradley v. Arizona Corp. Commission
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | STANFORD, J. |
| Citation | Bradley v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 141 P.2d 524, 60 Ariz. 508 (Ariz. 1943) |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4608 |
| Parties | LEE A. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Appellee |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment reversed.
Mr Norman M. Littell, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Frank E Flynn, United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona, Mr. E. R Thurman, Assistant United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona and Mr. Vernon L. Wilkinson, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Appellant.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. Edward P. Cline, Assistant Attorney General, of Phoenix, Arizona, Attorneys for Appellee.
Lee A. Bradley, a full blooded Navajo Indian, and a resident of Kayenta in the Navajo Reservation in Northern Arizona, on July 15, 1942, filed his application with the Arizona Corporation Commission for issuance of a permit as a contract motor carrier for the transportation of farm products and traders' supplies from Kayenta, on the Navajo Reservation, to Flagstaff, the county seat of Coconino County, and some forty or fifty miles distance to the entrance of the Navajo Reservation. The Commission heard the case on July 30, 1942, and on the same date denied appellant's application on the ground that he was an Indian ward of the United States and therefore non sui juris.
Later the appellant herein filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, at Phoenix, asking that the order of the Commission be vacated and that his application be granted.
The Commission in filing its answer stipulated with the appellant that the sole issue to be tried in the Superior Court was "whether an Indian, who is a ward of the Government of the United States and who has complied with all of the rules and regulations of the Corporation Commission and the laws of the State of Arizona necessary to procure a permit as a contract carrier on the public highways of the State of Arizona, should be disqualified for the sole reason that he be an Indian, a ward of the Government of the United States and under the charge of an Indian agent."
The Superior Court on December 23, 1942, entered its order dismissing the complaint, and from that order Lee A. Bradley, the appellant herein, has taken his appeal to this court.
Under the aforesaid stipulation it was also agreed that the appellant herein was a citizen of the United States and of the State of Arizona, and was over the age of twenty-one years, and that he was the holder of a contract with the firm of Wetherill and Colville, a copartnership, of Kayenta, Arizona, for the transportation of the products and supplies herein referred to from Kayenta to Flagstaff and return, including the points of Tuba City, Tonalea and Cow Springs, Arizona, the last three mentioned places being on the Navajo Reservation.
In this Court the appellee, Arizona Corporation Commission, contends:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Rorvick
...Big Pine School Dist. of Inyo County, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926; Begay v. Sawtelle, 53 Ariz. 304, 88 P.2d 999; Bradley v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 60 Ariz. 508, 141 P.2d 524; Harrison v. Laveen, 67 Ariz. 337, 196 P.2d 456; and the judgment of the trial court, striking down the statute......
-
Reyes v. Frank's Serv. & Trucking, LLC
... ... /Appellee/Cross–Appellantv.FRANK'S SERVICE AND TRUCKING, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Defendant/Appellant/Cross–Appellee.No. 1 ... Corbin v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 143 Ariz. 219, 229, 693 P.2d 362, 372 (App.1984) (“[T]he fact ... ...
-
Reyes v. Frank's Serv. & Trucking, LLC
... ... /Appellee/Cross–Appellant,v.FRANK'S SERVICE AND TRUCKING, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Defendant/Appellant/Cross–Appellee.No. 1 ... Corbin v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 143 Ariz. 219, 229, 693 P.2d 362, 372 (App.1984) (“[T]he fact ... ...
-
RCS Capital Dev., LLC v. A.B.C. Developmental Learning Ctrs., Inc.
... RCS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ... an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, ... See Dev. Found. Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 163 Ariz. 438, 446-47, 788 P.2d 1189, 1197-98 ... ...