federal constitutions. The Cooperatives do not challenge the court’s ruling on this issue, and we therefore do not address the equal protection claim further. 20 . Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....” Similarly, Article 2, Section 25, of the Arizona Constitution states that ”[n]o ... law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall ever be enacted.” 21 . See James P. Paul Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 137 Ariz. 426, 429, 671 P.2d 404, 407 (1983) (stating public service corporation receives monopoly in return for providing adequate service at reasonable rates); Application of Trico Elec. Coop., Inc., 92 Ariz. 373, 380-81, 377 P.2d 309, 315 (1962) (<HOLDING>). City of Tucson v. Polar Water Co., 76 Ariz.
holding state by issuing cc  n in effect contracts that if public service corporations makes adequate investment and renders competent service it will have monopoly holding that service of subpoena on plaintiffs counsel as opposed to the plaintiff himself renders such service a nullity holding that in light of the evidence it strains credulity to believe that the two corporations have no corporate connection as defendants assert and thus service on one did not effect service on the other holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding public service corporation obligated to furnish service to each patron at same price charged to other patrons for substantially similar service