Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Commission, 524 P.2d 1331.

28 citing documents.

Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tucson Unified School District v. Industrial Commission 7 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Tucson Unified School District v. Industrial Commission 7 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Exchange v. Industrial Comm’n
Jayo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 889 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Jayo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 889 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Exchange v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“In this case we are primarily concerned with the ‘in the course of requirement, for if we determine that automobile racing was in the scope of Henderson’s employment, obviously there is a causal relationship between that racing and his fatal accident.”) *270 Appellate courts defer t
Delgado v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delgado v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Murphy v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 774 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1989
Murphy v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 774 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1989
Exchange v. Industrial Comm’n, , .
Lemmon v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 740 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Lemmon v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 740 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(applying analogous standard).
Johnson Stewart Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission 652 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Johnson Stewart Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission 652 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The two factors listed by Larson, i.e., employer involvement and employer benefit, are among the factors listed in the course of employment test set forth by this court in Truck Insurance Exchange v. In *427 dustrial Commission
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery v. Industrial Commission, 36 Ill.2d 410 , 223 N.E.2d 150 (1967); Linderman v. Cownie Furs, 234 Iowa 708 , 13 N.W.2d 677 (1944).
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
424 , (injury occurring during recreation activity held compensable as recreation by the employee indirectly benefited the employer); , (death resulting from auto racing accident held compensable as racing activity indirectly benefited the employer), some work connected relationship must appear.
Miller v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 561 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Miller v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 561 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
493 , , any new, additional or previously undiscovered condition must also be causally related to the original accident.
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
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
311, 313 , “As a general rule, an employee is injured in the course of his employment if the employee was involved in an activity he might reasonably be expected to undertake during such time, and if the employee was at a place where he could reasonably be expected to be when the accident occurred.” , the court in considering what circumstances can cause activity to fall within the course of employment, deemed the following questions to be important : “Did the activity inure to the substantial b
State Compensation Fund v. Keefe 526 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Compensation Fund v. Keefe 526 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Arizona Revised Statutes, § 23-1021

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by