Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Trull, 520 P.2d 1188.

21 citing documents.

Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Amey v. Industrial Commission 752 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See generally Trull v. Industrial Comm’n, -14 , -91 (1974).
Duron v. State ex rel. Department of Economic Security 699 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Duron v. State ex rel. Department of Economic Security 699 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
As stated in , : “In practically all other fields of law we have rules and abundant case law which affords relief in appropriate cases where a party fails to meet a specific time limitation____ It is the announced general policy of the law that cases should be tried on their merits and not disposed o
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Hurst v. Bisbee Unified School District No. Two 607 P.2d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Hurst v. Bisbee Unified School District No. Two 607 P.2d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
As stated in this Court’s opinion of , : “It is the announced general policy of the law that cases should be tried on their merits and not disposed of on technicalities.
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
486 , , it is clear from these cases that no rigid set of guidelines has been established.
MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 528 Ariz. 1975
MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 528 Ariz. 1975
e field of Workmen’s Compensation where the statutes are re *470 medial in nature and are to be interpreted liberally to see that justice is done, (citations omitted) The fact that a claimant must take some affirmative action after every notice of claim status during the processing of his claim means we have numerous time limitation pitfalls for the unwary claimant and his attorney.” -514 , -91 (1974).
Reddell v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1974
Although we have excused late filings when justice demands, , , the burden is upon the claimant to see that the papers arrive in the office of the Industrial Commission within the period of time prescribed.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
this Department of the Court of Appeals made an analysis o_f Parsons which differs to some degree from the analysis by Department B in its opinion entitled Taylor v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App.