Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hopper v. Industrial Commission, 558 P.2d 927.

30 citing documents.

Rodriguez v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rodriguez v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cox v. sunterra/emc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cox v. sunterra/emc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Garrison v. nike/ace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Garrison v. nike/ace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hemming v. mccarthy/arch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hemming v. mccarthy/arch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estate of Page v. Litzenburg 865 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Page v. Litzenburg 865 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Reno v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1988
Reno v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1988
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Comm’n, , (citing Hopper v. Industrial Comm’n, -35 , -30 (1976)).
Baudanza v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 720 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Baudanza v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 720 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
E.g., Hopper v. *514 Industrial Comm’n
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 708 P.2d 1307 Ariz. 1985
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 708 P.2d 1307 Ariz. 1985
le parties and not explicitly made parties to the special action is not always fatal, “[a] defect in identifying a party against whom an appeal is taken does not necessarily invalidate the appeal, particularly where the judgment being appealed is sufficiently identified and sufficient notice is given so that the putative appellee is neither misled nor prejudiced.” , (citation omitted).
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
this court observed: The purpose of the “clear and convincing” standard is to guide the trier of fact in the consideration of the evidence.
Associated Grocers v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N, ETC. 652 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Associated Grocers v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N, ETC. 652 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
As long as there is reasonable and substantial evidence in support of the result reached by the hearing officer, this Court must affirm that result.” -35, -30 (1976); accord
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 651 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 651 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Scott v. Wasielewski, [ , ]; Hopper v. Industrial Commission, [ , ]; 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 81.50 (1976)....
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
: *488 “The purpose of the ‘clear and convincing’ standard is to guide the trier of fact in consideration of the evidence.
Southwest Nurseries v. Industrial Commission 650 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Southwest Nurseries v. Industrial Commission 650 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission 616 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission 616 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Associated Grocers argues that the award was sufficiently identified and that the State Compensation Fund was given sufficient notice of the petition for review.
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See e. g., , , , Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App.