Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 410 P.2d 144.

42 citing documents.

Glodo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Glodo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Lewis v. Industrial Comm’n
Sandoval v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Sandoval v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Mullins v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mullins v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
This Court has sanctioned the temporary termination of compensation benefits of those claimants who unduly resist the efforts of the Commission, , Bierman v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
Williams v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Williams v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
we stated: “On appeal, by writ of certiorari, this Court can only affirm or set aside the award of the Industrial Commission.
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bearden v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bearden v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the claimant had been convicted of a felony and had served his time several years prior to his industrially related injury.
Fudge v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fudge v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
24 , , , Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
486 , review denied, , : “ ‘Industrial compensation is not based on the good moral character of the petitioner, but is founded upon whether the petitioner comes within the scope of the workmen’s compensation statutes.’ ” Whether one approves or disapproves of the conduct of the petitioner and the employee prior to their
Clark v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Clark v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
“Industrial compensation is not based on the good moral character of the petitioner, but is founded upon whether the petitioner comes within the scope of the workmen’s compensation statutes.”
McKnight v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
McKnight v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 448 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 448 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
D, , , it cannot but note the great length of time that has transpired in processing this matter through the Industrial Commission.
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Malinski v. Industrial Commission 438 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Malinski v. Industrial Commission 438 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
and therein we stated: “On appeal, by writ of certiorari, this Court can only affirm or set aside the award of the Industrial Commission.
Garrard v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Garrard v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Nye v. Industrial Commission 424 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Nye v. Industrial Commission 424 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz. *167 App. 522
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, supra
Salmi v. Industrial Commission 415 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Salmi v. Industrial Commission 415 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
and Womack v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Morris v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Morris v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Nebel v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Nebel v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
that a petitioner .can.preclude himself compensation by consciously resisting rehabilitation.
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
: * * * “We will further state that in reviewing the files of the Industrial Commission and the records of hearings conducted by the referees, that we do not look with favor upon hearings in which the referee, abandoning the cloak of impartiality, joins the attorney for the Commission as a second