Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pauley v. Industrial Commission, 508 P.2d 1160.

62 citing documents.

Sherring v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 426 P.3d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Sherring v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 426 P.3d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
3 Sherring relies on Pauley v. Industrial Commission , , 300, Knack v. Industrial Commission , , 546, and City Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission , , 287-88, which all addressed when the claimants were hired in the context of whether they were hired in Arizona, but which
Schwager v. VHS Acquisition Corp./Vanguard Health Management 142 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Schwager v. VHS Acquisition Corp./Vanguard Health Management 142 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Comm’n, -02 , -4 (1973) (citations omitted).
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 15 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 15 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Williams v. Industrial Commission 977 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Williams v. Industrial Commission 977 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
He concluded that the injury did not arise out of Williams’ employment, following the rule enunciated in Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n, -02 , -64 (1973), in which the supreme court said that an injury which occurs during an employee’s break period in an area that is not on the employer’s premises or under the employer’s control occurs outside the course of employment.
Smithey v. Hansberger 938 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Smithey v. Hansberger 938 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n, -01 , -63 (1973); J.D.
Poole v. Industrial Commission 850 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Poole v. Industrial Commission 850 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.g., Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n, -01 , -63 (1973); , accord 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 15.00 (1992).
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Citing Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n, , this court found that the knee injury was accidental under the workers’ compensation statute.
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n
Nowlin v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 806 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Overruled Nowlin v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 806 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
This view of the “coming and going”
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
("on premises" exception to going and coming rule adopted).
Konichek v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Konichek v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Allen v. Industrial Commission 762 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Allen v. Industrial Commission 762 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
E.g., Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n
P.B. Bell & Associates v. Industrial Commission 690 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
P.B. Bell & Associates v. Industrial Commission 690 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
is generally considered to have adopted for Arizona the “on premises rule” whereby an injury while going to or from work is considered as arising out of and in the course of work and therefore compensable.
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Sendejaz v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App.
DeSchaaf v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 686 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeSchaaf v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 686 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
We note that the constitutional provision also refers to an accident "arising out of and in the course of such employment.” Although the supreme court’s interpretation of this section necessarily creates a redundancy in Article 18, § 8, , with Goodyear Aircraft Corp., 62 Ariz. at 409 , 158 P.2d at 516 , we nevertheless believe the supreme court was correct, and, in any event, we are obliged to follow it.
Torres v. Industrial Commission 670 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Torres v. Industrial Commission 670 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
1 A. Larson, supra, at § 15.10.
Brooks v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 664 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brooks v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 664 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
P.2d 1325 (App.1979); 1 Larson, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15 (1978) [hereinafter referred to as 1 *149 Larson].
Frank E. Basil, Inc. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 634 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Frank E. Basil, Inc. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 634 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
See, e. g., , , , , City Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App.
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation v. Industrial Commission 611 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation v. Industrial Commission 611 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Driscoll v. Harmon 601 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1979
Driscoll v. Harmon 601 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1979
Knoop v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Knoop v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
J. D. Dutton, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
J. D. Dutton, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
E. g., Pauley v. Industrial Comm’n, , Butler v. Industrial Comm’n, , Kerr v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App.
Fisher Contracting Co. v. Industrial Commission 555 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fisher Contracting Co. v. Industrial Commission 555 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
his employment: “ * * * We hold that when an employee is going to or coming from his place of work and is on the employer’s premises he is within the protective ambit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, at least when using the customary means of ingress and egress or route of employee’s travel or is otherwise injured in a place he may reasonably be expected to be.”
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
ar one: “We hold that when an employee is going to or coming from his place of work and is on the employer's premises he is within the protective ambit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, at least when using the customary means of ingress and egress or route of employee’s travel or is otherwise injured in a place he may reasonably be expected to be.”