DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Henshaw v. Mays, 512 P.2d 604.

34 citing documents.

  • Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
  • Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
  • Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
  • Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
    “[T]o avoid the possibility that no action would ever be instituted against the third party,” , a 1968 amendment to A.R.S.
  • State v. Superior Court 745 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Superior Court 745 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    this court held that implicit in the legislation was the right of the carrier to reassign the claim back to the worker and that the worker, upon reassignment, could pursue the tortfeasor for all damages including those for pain and suffering.
  • Grim v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 740 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Grim v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 740 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Despite the silence, , concluded that the compensation provider had the right to reassign the claim to the employee.
  • Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
  • Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
    held that the common law rule against assignment of tort actions did not apply to reassignment from the employer to the employee under A.R.S.
  • Sneed v. Belt 635 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Sneed v. Belt 635 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Ross v. Superior Court 625 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1981
  • Ross v. Superior Court 625 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1981
    Such a claim so assigned may be prosecuted or compromised by the insurance carrier or the person liable for the payment thereof.” It is the respondents’ , held that *302 an insurance carrier may reassign to the injured workman the right to maintain an action previously assigned by force of A.R.S.
  • Stephens v. Textron, Inc. 619 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1980
  • Stephens v. Textron, Inc. 619 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1980
    in support of her position.
  • Meyer v. Kelsey-Hayes Corp. 613 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Meyer v. Kelsey-Hayes Corp. 613 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    for the proposition that the statute was enacted for the benefit of the injured employee and his dependents and confers no rights on third-party tortfeasors.
  • Peters v. M & O Construction, Inc. 579 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Peters v. M & O Construction, Inc. 579 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • K. W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble 567 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • K. W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble 567 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    a wrongful death action was filed by the plaintiffs one year and five days after the death of the workman.
  • Martinez v. Bucyrus-Erie Company 547 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1976
  • Martinez v. Bucyrus-Erie Company 547 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1976
  • Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
  • Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
    lement to the extent of the amount paid by the compensation carrier under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation law; and, (4) Allows the compensation carrier, if suit is not brought by the injured party in one year, to maintain an action against the alleged third party tortfeasor for an amount not to exceed those sums paid or to be paid in the future to the injured party.” -306 , -610 (1973).
  • Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Russell v. Beck 528 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Russell v. Beck 528 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    the court held that after one year, as between the injured workman and the insurance carrier, the right to maintain an action against the tortfeasor passes to the carrier.
  • Sargent v. Hallcraft Homes, Inc. 512 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Clark v. Kennecott Copper Corp. 512 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Clark v. Kennecott Copper Corp. 512 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    This appeal raises the same legal issue decided this date in Henshaw v. Mays, Ariz.App., , that is, whether a workman injured in the course of his employment and who receives compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, may, after one year, having obtained an assignment from the compensation carrier of all its rights, maintain an action against the alleged third party tortfeasor.
  • Sargent v. Hallcraft Homes, Inc. 512 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    This appeal raises the same legal issue decided this date in Henshaw v. Mays, Ariz.App., , that is, whether a workman who is injured in the course of his employment and who receives compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, may, after one year, having obtained an assignment from the compensation carrier of all its rights maintain an action against the alleged third party tortfeasor.