Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., 665 P.2d 40.

55 citing documents.

Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Young v. Env’t Air Prods., Inc., (citing authority).
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ja framing/copperpoint v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Comm’n, (citing Young v. Env’t Air Prods., Inc., ), vacated on other grounds
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Air Prods., Inc., modified on other grounds and aff’d
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
Air Prods., Inc., (citing A.R.S.
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
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
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Inc., (quoting 1C A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 49.12 (1982)).6 In addition to the test based on regularity or predictability of the activity, and on its relation to the way this employer got this kind of job done in the past, a helpful additional t
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Air Prods., Inc., modified on other grounds and aff’d, P.2d 40 (1983).
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Inmon v. Crane Rental Services, Inc. 67 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Inmon v. Crane Rental Services, Inc. 67 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Air Prods., Inc., , (citation omitted).
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
and strictly interpreted when loss of the worker’s common law rights is the object for which the statute is invoked____” Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc.
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
See, e.g., Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , (noting that plaintiffs recovered workers’ compensation benefits from insured contractor/employer, but subjecting original employer to civil suit only because it did not meet the requirements of a statutory employer); Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Comm’n, , 636
Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , ( , ).
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Given the general rule in Arizona that indemnity among joint tortfeasors is not allowed, Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , aff'd as modified, , section 90 provides an exception because, under that section, an agent is entitled to indemnification when he becomes liable in tort, without any fault of his own, simply by following the instructions of another agent of the principal.
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
Accordingly, the two necessary elements of a statutory employment relationship are: 1) the employer procuring the work must retain supervision or control over the employee’s work, and 2) the work “entrusted to the subcontractor must be a ‘part or process in the trade or business’ of the employer.” , (emphasis in original).
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
160 n. 1, , 42 n. 1 (1983), a statutory employer is one who is “compelled by law to pay workmen’s compensation benefits to remote employees—i.e., employees of another.” See A.R.S.
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , aff'd in relevant part
Bennett v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 789 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bennett v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 789 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lindsey v. Bucyrus-Erie 778 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lindsey v. Bucyrus-Erie 778 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lindsey confuses the test for determining a lent employee relationship with the test for determination of a statutory employer, which does require a finding that “such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer.” Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , (quoting A.R.S.
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
aff'd as modified, , one of the issues was whether Foster was an employee of the defendant Environmental Air Products.
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc., , approved as modified on other grounds, , , and cases cited.
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 713 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1986
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 713 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1986
160 n. 1, , 42 n. 1 (1983).
Nation v. Weiner 701 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Nation v. Weiner 701 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
[35] at 42, 485 P.2d [859] at 866 [1971].”
Hunt Building Corp. v. Industrial Commission 713 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hunt Building Corp. v. Industrial Commission 713 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Skyview Cooling Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 691 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by