Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wilson v. Wilson, 399 P.2d 698.

28 citing documents.

Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rios v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rios v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
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
It is their duty to consider all of the evidence and bring to bear their best and most conscientious judgment with a view of reaching a just, fair, and equitable conclusion.’ , ” In the making of awards the function of the Industrial Commission is judicial in nature and is governed by the same general principles as judgments of courts including the right of any person to his day in court and an opportunity to present his case fully and freely.
Polston v. Industrial Commission 475 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Polston v. Industrial Commission 475 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
It is their duty to consider all of the evidence and bring to bear their best and most conscientious judgment with a view of reaching a just, fair, *294 and equitable conclusion.’ , ” 10 Ariz.App.
Scott v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Scott v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
However, we must presume the Commission performed its duty to consider all the relevant evidence, , and a second review of the record adequately supports that presumption.
Pauley v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Pauley v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
It is their duty to consider all of the evidence and bring to bear their best and most conscientious judgment with a view of reaching a just, fair, and equitable conclusion.” 399 P.2d.
Countryman v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Countryman v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Brown v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Brown v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
award is an adjudication as to the condition of the injured workman at the time it is entered, and conclusive of all matters adjudicable at the time, but is not an adjudication as to the claimant’s future condition and does not preclude subsequent awards or subsequent modifications of the original award upon a showing that the employee’s physical condition has changed.”
Powell v. Industrial Commission 418 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Powell v. Industrial Commission 418 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
307, 308).” ■Although we must assume the Commission 'viewed these films, as well as all other evidence in the file, , King v. Alabam’s Freight Co., , 298 P. 634 (1931); , we do not know whether the Commission took into consideration the fact that the film was “speeded up” as apparently did the Referee.
In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
.” Kolombatovich (supra)
Leake v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Leake v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
This Court and our Supreme Court have passed upon this question and held that the act is constitutional, , Shaw v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association
Everett v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Everett v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Collins v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Collins v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Donaldson v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.