Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Word v. Motorola, Inc., 662 P.2d 1024.

60 citing documents.

Martinez v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Martinez v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, e.g., Word v. Motorola, Inc., (“Parties cannot stipulate as to the law applicable to a given state of facts and bind the court.”) (citation omitted).
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Comm’n of Ariz., (emphasis omitted), and a party’s assertions on questions of law cannot bind ADES or this Court, see Word v. Motorola, Inc., (noting that parties “cannot stipulate as to the law .
Innovative v. wellman/special/run Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Innovative v. wellman/special/run Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 23–901.08(D)(3) and the lent-employee doctrine as adopted in Word v. Motorola, Inc., which made a “lent employee” a covered employee of the business to which they are lent.
Lehman v. Washburn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lehman v. Washburn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aloha Grading v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aloha Grading v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
‘Parties cannot stipulate as to the law applicable to a given state of facts and bind the court.’”) (quoting Word v. Motorola, Inc., ).
Moore v. Brewer Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moore v. Brewer Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See generally Word v. Motorola, Inc., Special Fund Div./No Ins.
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Porteadores Del Noroeste S.A. De, C.V. v. Industrial Commission 316 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Porteadores does not challenge the ALJ’s finding that "Porteadores is the employer under the lent employee doctrine.” -20 , -27 (1983) (explaining that if the lent employee doctrine applies, both employers are liable for workers' compensation).
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
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
See Word v. Motorola, Inc., , (quoting 1C A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 48.00 (1982)).
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
" Word v. Motorola, Inc., , (quoting State Consol.
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
Word v. Motorola, Inc., , (quoting 1C A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 48.00 (1982)).
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“ 'Parties cannot stipulate as to the law applicable to a given state of facts and bind the court.’ ” Word v. Motorola, Inc., , quoting State Consol.
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Mora v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance 996 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mora v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance 996 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wiseman v. DynAir Tech of Arizona, Inc. 966 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Wiseman v. DynAir Tech of Arizona, Inc. 966 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Word v. Motorola, Inc., , quoting 1C A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 48.00 (1982).
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, e.g., Word v. Motorola, Inc.
McDaniel v. Troy Design Services Co. 925 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McDaniel v. Troy Design Services Co. 925 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
as additional authority in support of his argument.
Labor Force v. Industrial Commission 911 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Labor Force v. Industrial Commission 911 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Word v. Motorola, Inc., , the Arizona Supreme Court adopted the following factors for determining when a lent employee has become the employee of the special employer: When a general employer lends an employee to a special employer, the special employer becomes liable for workmen’s .
Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The majority correctly sets forth the law in relation to lent employees or “special employers.” I zero in on the first of the findings that is necessary in order for special employers to become liable for workers’ compensation: (a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer____ Word v. Motorola, Inc., , (emphasis added).
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“‘Parties cannot stipulate as to the law applicable to a given state of facts and bind the court.’” Word v. Motorola, Inc., , (quoting State Consol.
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
In Word v. Motorola, Inc., , our supreme court approved the following list of factors to be considered in determining when a lent employee has become the employee of a special employer so that the special employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits: ‘(a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implie

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by