Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5790,5790 |
| Citation | Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 265 P.2d 455, 76 Ariz. 402 (Ariz. 1953) |
| Parties | , 2 P.U.R.3d 158 RUBENSTEIN CONST. CO. v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMPROVEMENT & POWER DIST. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
James E. Flynn, and Allan K. Perry, Phoenix, for appellant.
Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask, and J. A. Riggins, Jr., Phoenix, for appellee.
Rubenstein Construction Company, a corporation (plaintiff-appellant), during the years 1951-1952 constructed five hundred dwelling units at Williams Air Force Base.Each unit was and is served by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, a corporation (defendant-appellee), with electrical energy for lighting, etc.As a condition precedent to such service, defendant demanded from plaintiff a connection charge of $25 per unit, which was paid.The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
Plaintiff by this action sought the return of the payments it had made for these connection charges, claiming the same had been illegally exacted.It alleges such a service charge is prohibited by Section 76-109, A.C.A.1939, which reads as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant answered, alleging itself to be a political subdivision and municipal corporation of the State of Arizona within the meaning of Section 7, Article 13, of the Constitution of Arizona, and thereby entitled to all the privileges and immunities granted such political subdivisions.
The defendant, after the issues were joined, filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit of its secretary stating its corporate status to be that alleged in its answer, and stating that it is an agricultural improvement district duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Chapter 75, Article 7, A.C.A.1939.Defendant's motion for summary judgment was predicated upon the theory that the provisions of Section 76-109, supra, had no application to it in its capacity as a municipal corporation.The trial court granted the motion and judgment was entered accordingly, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The sole assignment of error is:
'The court erred in...
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
-
Ball v. James
...would otherwise perform. See Ariz.Const., Art. 13, § 7, Art. 15, § 2. See also Rubenstein Construction Co. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist., 76 Ariz. 402, 265 P.2d 455 (1953) (Salt River Project is not a public service corporation and therefore statute forbidding......
-
Uhlmann v. Wren
...to accept the public service characterization of the District for regulatory purposes. Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Project Agr. Improvement & Power Dist., 76 Ariz. 402, 265 P.2d 455 (1953). In Bugbee v. Superior Court, 34 Ariz. 38, 267 P. 420 (1928), this Court held that the right o......
-
Situated v. City Of Flagstaff
...they are not ‘public service corporations' within the meaning of the constitution.” Rubenstein Constr. Co. v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 76 Ariz. 402, 404, 265 P.2d 455, 456 (1953). We conclude, therefore, that the supreme court has never recognized an implicit fun......
-
Local 266, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, A. F. of L. v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist.
...Ariz. 254, 226 P.2d 154, and the rehearing of the same case, 1951, 72 Ariz. 160, 232 P.2d 107; Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Proj. Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 1953, 76 Ariz. 401, 265 P.2d 455. Appellants' contention is As a municipal corporation the District asserts the following consequ......