Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Findley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 660 P.2d 874.

28 citing documents.

Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
John R France v. ica/gila county/acip Ariz. 2021
John R France v. ica/gila county/acip Ariz. 2021
Comm’n of Ariz., see Owens v. Indus.
Howe v. phoenix/york Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Howe v. phoenix/york Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Tucson Unified School District v. Industrial Commission 7 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Tucson Unified School District v. Industrial Commission 7 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1 § 23-1043.01(B); see Findley v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also Archer v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“[E]motional stress may have multiple causes, some work-related, others not so related.”), overruled on other grounds, *135 Bush v. Industrial Comm’n
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Findley v. Industrial Comm’n, -77 , -78 (App.1983), this court applied section 23-1043.01(B) to a case of suicide stemming from depression resulting from work-related stress.
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
reasonable grounds for the classification exist.” 1 Hart v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also Findley v. Industrial Comm’n
Hart v. Industrial Commission 884 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hart v. Industrial Commission 884 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Findley v. Industrial Comm’n
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Defendants argue that Ford was incapable of acting “purposely” and rely principally upon the following cases: Findley v. Industrial Comm’n, , Wood v. Industrial Comm’n, , Graver Tank & Mfg.
Barnes v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Barnes v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See also Findley v. Industrial Comm’n., , (“the stress placed upon the deceased ..
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
” Appellant contends that the issue of whether Ford’s conduct was wilful or not was a question of fact to be decided by the jury and that, in any event, the testimony of the psychiatrist showed that Ford’s act was wilful within the meaning of A.R.S.
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
this court rejected a similar equal protection argument concerning this statute.
DeSchaaf v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 686 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeSchaaf v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 686 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by