Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dean v. Industrial Commission, 551 P.2d 554.

46 citing documents.

Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
imposition of sentence must be suspended in order to place a person on probation.” (citation omitted)); –47 (1976) (probation treated as a sentence for the purpose of calculating the time to appeal), aff’d and adopted
Fagnani v. Honeywell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fagnani v. Honeywell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, (explaining the burden shifts to the employer only if the worker shows reasonable efforts to obtain employment).
Smith v. adoc/doa Risk Management Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Smith v. adoc/doa Risk Management Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
444, 446-47 , -27 , approved
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
444, 450 , (“Double jeopardy principles do not proscribe successive or multiple facets of an otherwise constitutionally acceptable punishment scheme adopted by a state as punishment to be imposed as the result of any one particular conviction.”), aff'd, , (approving opinion of Court of Appeals).
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
However, since Germany , we have continued to set forth what evidence is necessary to prove that employment is “reasonably available.” In Dean v. Industrial Comm’n, , we held that to prove with reasonable certainty that a claimant could secure a job, the evidence must “include, but is not limited to, the competition for available positions, ...
Arden-Mayfair v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arden-Mayfair v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
) the reasonable availability of the job upon which the award is calculated is demonstrated with at least express reference to the impaired worker’s disability to compete for that job and the likelihood that the potential employer will hire somebody with a previous disability.”
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
at 580 , 672 P.2d at 924 ( , ).
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
444 , , approved and adopted, , State v. Tritle, 15 Ariz.App.
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
Since we have concluded that the award must be set aside, we need not dwell on *126 claimant’s contention that the testimony of the carrier’s
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
See Roach, supra; , Davis, supra.
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
2 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 57.60, 57.61 (1981).
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
444 , approved and adopted
State v. Jones 625 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
444 , , approved and adopted
State v. Seip 623 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
444 , affirmed, , , Annot.
State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
444 , , approved and adopted, , was faced with a similar situation.
State v. Velazquez 593 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
444 , aff'd and adopted, , where we held that time spent in the county jail as a condition of probation did not have to be credited against a prison sentence ultimately imposed when the probation was revoked.
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Employer’s Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
444 , , aff’d , (adopts opinion of Ct.App.), and we will view probation in that sense for purposes of application of the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions.
State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
444 , adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
444 , majority opinion adopted by this court in , a case involving Rule 31.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which requires notice of appeal to be filed within 20 days “after the entry of judgment and sentence,” held for purposes of Rule 31.3, that the term “sentence” includes the granting of probation.
State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
Credit for time served as a condition of probation, and the time served credited by the sentencing judge against such probation, were both resolved contrary to appellant’s , aff’d
State v. Montgomery 566 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1977
444 , approved , and the court may require that a defendant comply with numerous conditions of probation when, in the opinion of the court, such conditions aid in the rehabilitation process or prove a reasonable alternative to incarceration as punishment for the crime committed.
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
444 , majority opinion of the Court of Appeals adopted by Arizona Supreme Court in , holding that probation is a “sentence”.
State v. Gray 564 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Hadley 559 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Burton v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 558 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by