Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 880 P.2d 642.

72 citing documents.

Aaa Cab Service Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund division/no Insurance Section 141 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Aaa Cab Service Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund division/no Insurance Section 141 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Comm’n, -27, -47 (App. 1993) (addressing extent to which workers’ compensation scheme applies and limits common law principles of claim and issue preclusion).
Lovitch v. Industrial Commission 41 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lovitch v. Industrial Commission 41 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Special Fund Division v. Tabor 32 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Special Fund Division v. Tabor 32 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Comm’n, -27 , -47 (App.1993).
Brown v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Brown v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , Western Cable v. Industrial Comm’n
Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Followed Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 16 In his challenge to Phoenix Cotton Pickery , Claimant mainly relies on Circle *272 K
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Circle K v. Industrial Comm’n, , (preclusion encompasses the archaic doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel).
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 218 , 889 P.2d at 11 (relying on Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
See Circle K v. Industrial Comm’n
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n
Gerhardt v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 889 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gerhardt v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 889 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Additionally, in Circle K , this court determined that, when a claimant had little prior financial incentive to litigate an issue, and therefore allowed a termination notice to become final, the claimant would not be precluded from a reconsideration of the issue when later difficulties provided such an incentive.
Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 880 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 880 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
For an additional discussion of "claim preclusion” and "issue preclusion" see Circle K Corporation v. Industrial Comm’n