Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Moorehead v. Industrial Commission, 495 P.2d 866.

25 citing documents.

Free v. westat/liberty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Free v. westat/liberty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzalez v. interstate/xl Specialty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gonzalez v. interstate/xl Specialty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
westat/liberty v. Free Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
westat/liberty v. Free Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, (discussing Matlock).
Carr v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Carr v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 15 In Moorehead v. Industrial Comm’n, , we declined to include in the claimant’s average monthly wage his travel expense allowance from his employer.
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“[P]ayments or benefits conferred upon an employee in return for his labor and services are includable in computing the average monthly wage, even though these payments or benefits do not on their face purport to be ‘wages.’ ” Moorehead v. Industrial Comm’n
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Moorehead v. Industrial Comm’n, , Young v. Industrial Comm’n
Oak Indus. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 739 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Oak Indus. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 739 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, e.g., Pettis v. Industrial Comm’n, , Moorehead v. Industrial Comm’n
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Scott v. Industrial Commission 593 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Scott v. Industrial Commission 593 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
This Court has stressed that in computing average monthly wage, there should be included those items constituting “real economic gain to the employee.” Moorehead v. Industrial Comm’n, , quoting with approval, 2 Larson, supra, § 60.12; Harvey Auto Supply, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 25 Ariz.App.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
274 , , Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 60.12 (1976).
Harvey Auto Supply Inc. v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Harvey Auto Supply Inc. v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the claimant was paid, in addition to his fixed wages, travel allowances which were computed pursuant to a union “basing point” system and which reasonably reflected the actual expenses incurred by the claimant in work-related travel.
Young v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Young v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The issues raised have been discussed and decided adversely to the petitioner in this Court’s opinion rendered in Moorehead v. Industrial Commission, 16

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by