Pine-Strawberry Imp. Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Com'n
| Decision Date | 21 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | PINE-STRAWBERRY,CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 152 Ariz. 339,732 P.2d 230 |
| Parties | IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, an Arizona non-profit corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. The ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Defendant/Appellant. 5822. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The Arizona Corporation Commission (the Commission) appeals from entry of judgment on the pleadings, the trial court finding that the Commission violated plaintiff-intervenor Pine-Strawberry Improvement Association's due process rights in the course of acting upon an application by E & R Water Company for a permanent rate increase. The Commission argues that it did not violate Pine-Strawberry's rights by allowing a nonpresiding hearing officer to docket a proposed order in the rate application proceeding. In the alternative, the Commission argues that the superior court's scope of review of the Commission's order was limited to whether the findings and conclusion of the Commission were supported by substantial evidence. We agree with both arguments raised by the Commission and reverse.
Following E & R's application, Pine-Strawberry was granted leave to intervene. A hearing officer presided over the recorded hearings; however, he resigned prior to the preparation of a proposed order. The chief hearing officer prepared and submitted to the Commission a proposed order relating to the rate increase. The Commission granted the rate increase and denied Pine-Strawberry's application for a rehearing. Pine-Strawberry appealed to superior court on the grounds inter alia that the Commission's decision violated Pine-Strawberry's due process rights and that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court granted Pine-Strawberry's motion for judgment on the pleadings, setting aside the Commission's decision and finding "the decision on the proposed rate increase [had] been reached in violation of the constitutional requirements of due process of law."
Initially, we hold that the superior court erred in finding that the Commission violated Pine-Strawberry's due process rights. It is well settled that the Commission's hearing staff does not rule on an application for rate increase. Walker v. DeConcini, 86 Ariz. 143, 341 P.2d 933 (1959). The Commission has sole authority for making such a decision and is never bound by the hearing officer's recommendation. The Commission's own rules and regulations dictate that the presiding hearing officer shall only prepare...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., 90-16113
...any claim that a Commission decision or order offends the federal constitution. See, e.g., Pine-Strawberry Improvement Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 152 Ariz. 339, 732 P.2d 230 (Ariz.App.1986); State ex rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 143 Ariz. 219, 693 P.2d 362 (Ariz.App.1984). A sta......
-
Wales v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n
...effective only upon review and approval by the final decision maker, the Commission. See Pine-Strawberry Imp. Ass'n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , 152 Ariz. 339, 340, 732 P.2d 230, 231 (App. 1986).¶11 The Waleses are not the first to raise a due process claim based on the Commission's use of ALJs ......
-
Minch v. Ariz. State Bd. of Nursing
...on an independent review of the record.3 See Ritland, 213 Ariz. at 190-91, ¶¶ 10-12, 14; see also Pine-Strawberry Improvement Ass'n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 152 Ariz. 339, 340 (App. 1986). We will not reverse the Board's decision if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting it. S......
-
Wales v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n
...commissioners themselves need not personally observe the witnesses." 147 Ariz. at 421 n.1; see also Pine-Strawberry Improvement Ass'n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 152 Ariz. 339, 340 (App. 1986).¶17 When faced with this distinction, this court has said a hearing officer tasked with preparing a pro......