Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ruth v. Industrial Commission, 490 P.2d 828.

98 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Comm’n, (“The case law is replete with the history of the [anti-abrogation clause]” and reveals that the clause “was enacted to elevate the common law action of negligence to constitutional stature to preserve the right 4 In his concurrence, Justice Bolick disagrees that article 18, section 6 and article 2, sect
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, ); see also Hazine, 176 Ariz. at 627 (holding that statute of repose that abolished claim before any injury occurred abrogates cause of action and was not mere regulation of cause of action).
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
in which our supreme court stated: “We believe that the legislature has the right to abolish the collateral source rule as it affects medical malpractice cases just as it has done in the work[ers’] compensation field.”
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
As Kilpatrick, 419 Ariz. at 419, 466 P.2d at 24, and Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, demonstrate, Article 18, Section 6 still protects an employee’s right to maintain a common law negligence action against his or her employer.
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
As Kilpatrick, 105 Ariz. at 419 , 466 P.2d at 24 , and Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, , demonstrate, Article 18, Section 6 still protects an employee’s right to maintain a common law negligence action against his or her employer.
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
Comm’n, (1965 workers’ compensation statute provided an employee with an election because it “furnishe[d] an alternative for the employee which he [could] voluntarily accept or reject”); 300 P. 958, 959 (1931) (1928 workers’ compensation law
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 11 As plaintiffs correctly note, , in which it had interpreted the 1965 version of the statute.
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
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
¶ 23 Third, Claimant argues that the issue is one of a “general public nature, affecting the interests of the state at large.” Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, , ( , ).
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, , (statute granting worker right to elect to pursue action against third-party tortfeasor and granting Industrial Commission lien on any recovery not complete abrogation in violation of constitution).
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
at 106 , 692 P.2d at 285 (quoting Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, , (emphasis deleted)).
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Id.; Gosewisch, 153 Ariz. at 406 , 737 P.2d at 382 ; -74 , *407 829-30 (1971).
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Noting a risk of uncollectability in every case, , : “It is our opinion that the constitutional provision [prohibiting damages recovery limitations, Ariz. Const, art. 18, § 6,] was meant only to maximize the injured party’s potential for recovering his entire damages, not to insure its recoverability.” See Smith, 171 Ariz. at 515 , 831 P
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
See McElhaney Cattle Co., 132 Ariz. at 290 , 645 P.2d at 805 ; Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Schuff Steel v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 891 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Schuff Steel v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 891 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, , (workers’ compensation lien on a judgment is not an unconstitutional limitation on recovery because article 18, § 6 is not intended to insure recoverability); Smith v. Belli *348 na, , (periodic payment statute not unconstitutional on the grounds that it may