Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ross v. Industrial Commission, 540 P.2d 1234.

56 citing documents.

Vargas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 926 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Vargas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 926 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds by Ross v. Industrial Comm’n
Martinez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 856 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Martinez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 856 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
When “the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning,” statutory interpretation is unnecessary, “and courts must follow the meaning of the statute as written.” Ross (Robert) v. Industrial Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds, Alsbrooks v. Industrial Comm’n, 118 * P.2d 159 (1978).
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
vacated on other grounds, , the claimant had a preexisting nonindustrial condition, a cataract, in one eye.
Escalanti v. Superior Court 799 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Escalanti v. Superior Court 799 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
242, 245 , (where the language of the legislature is clear and leaves no opportunity for interpretation, the language must be followed); , (there is no opportunity for construction or interpretation of a statute if the meaning of the statutory language is clear on its face); , (where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to interpret the statute, and courts must follow the meaning of the statute as written); Isaak v. Mas
McPeak v. Industrial Commission 741 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
McPeak v. Industrial Commission 741 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Markwood Enterprises, Ltd. v. Division of Occupational Safety & Health 730 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Markwood Enterprises, Ltd. v. Division of Occupational Safety & Health 730 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
Hoppin v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 692 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hoppin v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 692 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
vacating this court’s decision in Ross v. Industrial Commission, supra.
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Jim Click Ford, , A.R.S.
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
This court and the Board must follow the meaning of the statute as written, see, , and we believe that to do so gives Caldwell the rights the legislature intended to convey to denturists in disciplinary proceedings.
Collins v. Stockwell 671 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1983
Collins v. Stockwell 671 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1983
National Union Fire Ins.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 653 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 653 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
overruled on other grounds, , which held that the carrier was not responsible for treatment for claimant’s non-industrially injured eye.
Pullins v. Industrial Commission 645 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1982
Overruled Pullins v. Industrial Commission 645 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1982
Although in Alsbrooks, supra, , we agree with the statement in Ross that “it is unrealistic to say that a man who has lost an eye has no disability.” 112 Ariz. at 256 , 540 P.2d at 1237 .
Kovacs v. Industrial Commission 644 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Kovacs v. Industrial Commission 644 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Compare, for example, , , and note the internal inconsistencies in Alsbrooks between its legal analysis and ultimate disposition, bearing in mind that the “conclusive presumption”
Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore 640 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1981
Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore 640 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1981
Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
As support for his determination
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Alsbrooks v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1978
Alsbrooks v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1978
which concern the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to a second injury after a prior non-industrial injury.
Arizona College of the Bible, Inc. v. Department of Economic Security 582 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona College of the Bible, Inc. v. Department of Economic Security 582 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Industrial Commission 566 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1977
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Industrial Commission 566 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1977
See for typical examples of the application of § 23-1044(E): All Star Coach, , Ross r. Industrial Commission
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 565 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1977
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 565 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1977
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Underlying this contention is the petitioner’s assertion that he is entitled to unscheduled rather than scheduled benefits as a result of prior non-industrial injuries
Alsbrooks v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Alsbrooks v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
On the day following the issuance of the hearing officer’s Decision Upon Hearing and Findings and Award, , vacating this Court’s previously filed opinion, Ross v. Industrial Commission, 22 Ariz.App.