Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 688 P.2d 192.

66 citing documents.

Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Comm’n, (quoting Home Ins.
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Comm’n of Ariz., (emphasis omitted), and a party’s assertions on questions of law cannot bind ADES or this Court, see Word v. Motorola, Inc., (noting that parties “cannot stipulate as to the law .
Guzman v. Voice & data/hartford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Guzman v. Voice & data/hartford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Comm’n, (citing Home Ins.
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Comm’n, –69 (App. 1984) (appellate court must make an independent determination of a person’s status as an employee or independent contractor)).
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vega v. SD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Vega v. SD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Euro v. lopez/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Euro v. lopez/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
7 AJF CUSTOM v. QUINTERO Decision of the Court ¶19 Walker’s P.2d 192 (App. 1984).
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, , but review factual determinations “in a light most favorable to sustaining the Commission’s award,” id.
Henderson-Jones v. Industrial Commission 310 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Henderson-Jones v. Industrial Commission 310 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Jose A. Escobar v. Marshall Foundation and Pinnacle Risk Management 285 P.3d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Jose A. Escobar v. Marshall Foundation and Pinnacle Risk Management 285 P.3d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Comm’n, (second alteration in Santiago); Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc., (whether one person is employee of another “depend[s] on the circumstances surrounding the relationship of the parties”).
Jaramillo v. Industrial Commission 58 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Jaramillo v. Industrial Commission 58 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Anton v. Industrial Comm’n
Wiseman v. DynAir Tech of Arizona, Inc. 966 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Wiseman v. DynAir Tech of Arizona, Inc. 966 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
at 453 , 904 P.2d at 1277 , quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
Kisco, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 949 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Kisco, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 949 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, , , (App.1984).
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Anton v. Industrial Comm’n
Southeast Arizona Medical Center v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Samc v. Ahcccs 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Samc v. Ahcccs 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Southeast Arizona Medical Center v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” , (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In considering whether a claimant was an employee or an independent contractor for workers’ compensation purposes, this court in Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, , noted that “[i]t is not the appellation which the parties give to the relationship, but rather the objective nature of the relationship, determined upon an analysis of the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case, which is determinative.” (Citation omitted.)
Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 911 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 911 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Central Management Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , Anton v. Industrial Comm’n