Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission, 480 P.2d 992.

32 citing documents.

Dunn v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 839 Ariz. 1991
Dunn v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 839 Ariz. 1991
Rasmussen v. Industrial Commission 783 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rasmussen v. Industrial Commission 783 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Garcia v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Garcia v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
and Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Felker v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 653 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Felker v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 653 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
appeal after remand, , and Neitman v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Spear v. Industrial Commission 562 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Spear v. Industrial Commission 562 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
116 , [also at , ], cited by petitioner are inapposite to this case.
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
appeal after remand, 20 Ariz.App.
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
480 * based upon undisputed facts which could not be changed, namely the date of the claim, the date of the first notice of claim status, and the date of the first award, the majority ruled that as a matter of law a certain legal consequence resulted therefrom.
Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Neitman v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Neitman v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Based upon its interpretation of the decision rendered by Department A , the Commission awarded compensation benefits to the petitioning workman for a period commencing January 8, 1971 (the date the workman first filed his petition to reopen) and extending to February 10, 1971 (the date the carrier, the State Compensation Fund, belatedly filed its Notice of Claim Sta
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Raymer v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Raymer v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
*593 , (Review denied.), we had occasion to consider the effect the failure of the carrier to deny liability within the statutory 14-day period.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
*593 , (Review denied.), we had occasion to consider the effect the failure of the carrier to deny liability within the statutory 14-day period.
State Compensation Fund v. Moore 481 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Compensation Fund v. Moore 481 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971