Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jones v. Industrial Commission, 401 P.2d 172.

46 citing documents.

Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“The right of cross-examination is necessary for substantial justice.”); Jones v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“where the Commission uses evidence, testimony, reports, documents, affidavits or any matter which may appear in the file upon which to base an award, there must be full and complete opportunity on the part of the parties to cross-examine”); see also 7 Arthur Larson & Lex K. La
Artis v. Industrial Commission 793 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Artis v. Industrial Commission 793 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Jones v. Industrial Comm’n, , Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n
Obersteiner v. Industrial Commission 779 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Obersteiner v. Industrial Commission 779 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Tyree v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Tyree v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Jones v. Industrial Comm’n, , citing Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Simpkins v. Industrial Comm’n, P.2d 47 (1935).
A.J. Bayless Markets, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
A.J. Bayless Markets, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Although we agree with petitioners that a waiver of a right cannot be established without a clear showing of an intent to relinquish such right and that doubtful cases will be decided against waiver, , for the reasons set forth hereinafter, we hold that in this case, petitioners made such a waiver of their right to cross-examine.
Scheytt v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 653 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Scheytt v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 653 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
291 , , Reinprecht v. Industrial Commission, supra.
Societe Jean Nicolas Et Fils v. Mousseux 597 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1979
Societe Jean Nicolas Et Fils v. Mousseux 597 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1979
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Fullen v. Industrial Commission 595 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1979
Fullen v. Industrial Commission 595 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1979
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc. 586 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc. 586 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1978
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
Reinprecht v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Reinprecht v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In rejecting the argument of non-compliance with Rule 35, Polston held that the rule must be read together with and in light of Rule 30, which provided that there should be an opportunity to “cross-examine any person who has given any evidence in the matter.” 2 *10 , that “Rule 35 cannot be used to restrict the right of the parties to cross examine a person who has given any evidence in the matter .
Reel v. Industrial Commission 497 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Reel v. Industrial Commission 497 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Although The Industrial Commission is not ordinarily bound by the Rules of Civil Procedure, P.2d 172 (1965); Transcontinental Bus System, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, , (both cases interpreting A.R.S.
Jones v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Jones v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In this connection see our opinion in Jones v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, filed 22 March 1965 and reported in , .
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
the attorney for the Fund relies heavily on Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure before The Industrial Commission of Arizona.
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
With our holding we do not reach petitioner’s , requires that a party entitled to the right or “opportunity” for cross-examination should not be compelled to expend money or effort in obtaining that “opportunity.” Award affirmed.
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
said regarding the defense of waiver: “ ‘ “A waiver of a right cannot be established without a clear showing of an intent to relinquish such right, and doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver,” Greninger v. Fischer, 81 Cal.App.2d 549, 554 , ; nor will a waiver be pr
Lugar v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lugar v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Industrial Commission v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 423 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Industrial Commission v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 423 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
518 , ; , ; , ; Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 (1926).
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
Avenente v. Smouse, 1 Ariz.App.