Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission, 599 P.2d 801.

73 citing documents.

Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Comm’n, (citations omitted).
J-King v. Conley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
J-King v. Conley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Guzman v. Voice & data/hartford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Guzman v. Voice & data/hartford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Espitia v. usw/cat/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Espitia v. usw/cat/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Indus Comm’n, (describing several non-exclusive factors to consider when determining whether a person or entity is a statutory employer).
harte/travelers v. vasquez/special fund/ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
harte/travelers v. vasquez/special fund/ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm'n , , 350, ("The right to control or supervise the method of reaching a specific result determines whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.").
Vega v. SD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Vega v. SD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Percy v. daniele/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Percy v. daniele/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mattly v. brown/focus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mattly v. brown/focus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Vance International v. Industrial Commission 952 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Vance International v. Industrial Commission 952 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Home Insurance Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , A. Larson, The Law of Workers’ Compensation, § 48.4[1] at 8-553 (1991).
Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 911 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 911 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , (applying right of control test to determine employer-employee relationship).
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission 842 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission 842 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 836 P.2d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 836 P.2d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In a , the supreme court set aside an award finding that the decedent was a joint employee.
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Home Insurance Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Central Management Co. v. Industrial Commission 781 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Central Management Co. v. Industrial Commission 781 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
City of Phoenix v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 742 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
City of Phoenix v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 742 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
As a general rule, whether an employment relationship exists for purposes of workers’ compensation is determined by application of the doctrine of “right to control.” , Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 713 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1986