Cited by

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

98 citing documents.

Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n.
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
but not in the court of appeals, or when the case involved “issues of statewide importance, those of constitutional dimension or situations in which the public interest is better served by having the issue considered rather than deferred.” Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 482 , 724 P.2d at 568 , , Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n, -74 , -30 (1971).
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 788 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 788 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Our supreme court has described that clause as having been enacted “to elevate the common law action of negligence to constitutional stature to preserve the right inviolate.”
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Moseley, 38 Ariz. at 420-21 , 300 P. at 959 .
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 718 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 718 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In Barrio , the supreme court affirmed “that the abrogation clause is implicated when the right of action is ‘completely abolished.’ ” 143 Ariz. at 106 , 692 P.2d at 285
Young v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Young v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Thus, , the Arizona Supreme Court held that under the statute the carrier’s lien rights could not be reduced by requiring the carrier to pay a portion of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Although Wilson concedes this point of law, she nevertheless asserts that this court should address the issue because the interpretation of this statute “is a question of general public nature affecting the interest of the state at large.”
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1984
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1984
Generally, this is correct, but a well recognized exception to that rule exists when the question is an issue of “general statewide significance.” , (considering the validity of A.R.S.
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Roseland v. City of Phoenix, 14 * P.2d 288 (1971).
Matter of Adoption of Hadtrath 592 P.2d 1262 Ariz. 1979
Matter of Adoption of Hadtrath 592 P.2d 1262 Ariz. 1979
While this general rule does not require unconditional adherence, , its application is most appropriate in this case.
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
and authorities cited therein.
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
recognized that with the change in the statutes an injured employee could accept compensation and at the same time sue the third party tort-feasor.
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 527 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 527 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 519 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 519 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
the court held that A.R.S.