Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Colvert v. Industrial Commission, 520 P.2d 322.

28 citing documents.

Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, -11 (1974) (assault-related injuries are compensable if altercation 5 CARDENAS v. AMAVIZCA/SPECIAL FUND Decision of the Court arises out of a work-related dispute).
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Pf Chang's v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 166 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Pf Chang's v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 166 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Comm’n, , which reasoning was also used in [sic] to find a compensable claim in Burnett v. Indus.
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, e.g., Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n, , 2 see also 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 11.12(b), at 3-212 to 3-221 (1996) (it is universally agreed that if the assault grew out of an argument over the performance of work, the assault is compensable).
Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.g., Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. INDUS. COM'N 829 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. INDUS. COM'N 829 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
§ 23-801; Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
See Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n
Jaimes v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 787 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Jaimes v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 787 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, e.g., Burnett v. Industrial Comm’n, , Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n
Burnett v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 764 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Burnett v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 764 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n, , accord 1 A. Larson, supra, § 11.15(a) at 3-216 (1985) (“If the fight is spontaneous and closely entangled with the work itself —as most are — the assertion that claimant left his employment involves an outright fiction; and fictions should not be invented to block the benefits conferre
Lapare v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 742 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Lapare v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 742 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rogers v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 644 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rogers v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 644 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
365 , , Peter Kiewit Sons’
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Initially, , and Dickerson v. Industrial Commission, 21 Ariz.App.
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In rejecting the “aggressor rule defense” for Arizona, this court, , laid a further foundation for this opinion.