Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gordon v. Industrial Commission, 533 P.2d 1194.

36 citing documents.

Craig v. City of phoenix/city of Phx Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Craig v. City of phoenix/city of Phx Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Comm’n, (explaining that “[t]he purpose of a subpoena is to obtain the presence of a witness at the hearing,” adding that “[o]nce that witness is present, barring any sort of privilege, generally, either party may call him to testify”); Garcia v. Indus.
Delgado v. Phoenix logistic/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Delgado v. Phoenix logistic/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
B & R/scf Az v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
B & R/scf Az v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, –60, –97 5 B & R/SCF AZ v. CARTER Decision of the Court (1975).
Naglieri v. Industrial Commission 336 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Naglieri v. Industrial Commission 336 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comm’n, , (citing Udall, Ariz. Law of Evid.
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Horan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Horan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also Amey v. Industrial Comm’n
Amey v. Industrial Commission 752 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Amey v. Industrial Commission 752 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n
K Mart Corp. v. Industrial Commission 679 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
K Mart Corp. v. Industrial Commission 679 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Its imposition denied the employer and carrier their fundamental right to present witnesses, see , and frustrated the achievement of substantial justice.
Pima Community College v. Industrial Commission 669 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Pima Community College v. Industrial Commission 669 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
McBath & Young Wrecking Co. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
McBath & Young Wrecking Co. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
: the legislature enacted A.R.S.
Northern Arizona University v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Northern Arizona University v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
: “It was in keeping with such motives that the legislature enacted A.R.S.
Martinez v. Fenton 572 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Martinez v. Fenton 572 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Cash v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Cash v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Epperson v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Epperson v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Harris v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Harris v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The two-stage hearing was conducted prior to the 15 April 1975 , , in which this Court at 23 Ariz.App.