Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Industrial Commission v. Navajo County, 167 P.2d 113.

29 citing documents.

Hwal'bay Ba J Enterprises Inc v. Hon. jantzen/fox Ariz. 2020
Hwal'bay Ba J Enterprises Inc v. Hon. jantzen/fox Ariz. 2020
Comm’n v. Navajo Cty., (stating that “the police power is inalienable” (emphasis removed)).
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hughes v. Industrial Comm’n, , , Industrial Comm’n v. Navajo County
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
177—178, -116 (1946), and cases cited therein, and see Industrial Commission v. Farm and Home Food Service, Inc., 5 Ariz.App.
Industrial Commission v. Farm & Home Food Service, Inc. 426 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Industrial Commission v. Farm & Home Food Service, Inc. 426 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
modified , ; , ; , .” Counsel urge divergent views on the liberality of interpretation of the definition of employee under our Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Hernandez v. County of Yuma 369 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1962
Hernandez v. County of Yuma 369 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1962
Posey v. Industrial Commission 350 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1960
Lee v. Dunklee 326 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1958
Lee v. Dunklee 326 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1958
Section 17-401, A.C.A.1939, 2 provides : “The boards of supervisors in each county of the state shall have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to provide for the hospitalization and medical care of the indigent sick in such county * * While we have held that it is a mandatory duty of the supervisors to provide medical attendance for the indigent sick, , , .we do not believe under the provisions of the above quoted section there *263 is a mandatory duty to erect a hospital to comply therewith.
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
For later cases setting forth the exceptions, see: , ; , ; Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr.
Carnes v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1952
Carnes v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1952
the court said: “ ‘Supervision or control’ as used in Section 56-928 of the Compensation Law does not mean that the board of supervisors or the employer may direct the thinking, or direct the technical manner of performing the work or services of a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. This, however, do
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
v. Navajo County, , ; Industrial Comm.