1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ariz.
  4. 122 Ariz.
  5. 122 Ariz. 512 (1979)
 

BISHOP v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

No. 2 CA-CIV 3026.

122 Ariz. 512 (1979)

596 P.2d 38

Jerry BISHOP, d/b/a Jerry Bishop's Towing & Salvage, Mike Hunt, dba Hunt's Towing Service & Auto Salvage, Robert Steele, dba B & B Towing Service, Phil Smith, dba Aviation Auto Body & Paint, Jerry Nichols, dba Desert Refrigeration & Auto Service, Inc., Ralph Vogler, dba Martin's Towing & Auto Repair, Mylan Marble, dba H & H Service, Inc., Keith Campbell, dba J & J Auto Body, Harvey Arndt, dba Arndt Auto Body & Paint Shop, Don Sherman, dba Don's Towing, William Douglass, dba A-Star Wrecker, W.F. Maust, dba W.F. "Wally" Maust Chevron Dealer, George Grubaugh, dba George's Auto Repair and Towing, Keith Pullen, dba Pullen Tow Service, Archie Allen, dba Archie's Freeway Service, Edward F. Norzagaray, dba Eddie's Tucson Towing, and Meyer Neuman, dba Meyer's General Automotive Garage, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Vernon Hoy, its Director, Arizona Highway Patrol, a Division of the Department of Public Safety, Lt. G.D. Dull, District Commander, District No. 8 of the Arizona Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, Sgt. Ed Slechta, in his capacity as Administrating Officer for District No. 8, David Henry, in his capacity as Tow Truck Inspector for the Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1979.

Review Denied May 30, 1979.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kenneth L. Allen, Tucson, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Kenneth R. Reed, John A. Baade and Paul S. Harter, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for defendants-appellants.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

This case was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts pursuant to Rule 52(c), 16 A.R.C.P. The main issue was whether the Arizona Department of Public Safety (hereinafter DPS) was acting within its powers when it created a "contract" towing system in Pima County for the removal of vehicles from the state highways. The trial court, ruling that DPS had no such power because it was, in effect, engaging in price control...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases