Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barron v. Ambort, 167 P.2d 925.

24 citing documents.

Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Thus, Arizona courts have considered the following to be “wages” under the statute: tips received by restaurant workers (Senor T’s) and cabdrivers (Scott); corporate stock received by an employee in lieu of cash (Harvey Auto Supply); a 40% commission on all sales made by the employee ( , ); “a house, utilities, milk, butter, eggs, and meat whenever cattle were slaughtered” (Matlock v. Industrial Comm’n, , ); title to mobile home trade-ins taken in lieu of salary by the general manager of a mobil
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Scott v. Industrial Commission 593 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Scott v. Industrial Commission 593 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The petitioner’s , is misplaced.
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See, , , Industrial Commission v. Jordan, 9 Ariz.App.
Still v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Still v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Although concerned with the concept of bonuses based upon individual effort of the employee as opposed to bonuses generally, , is instructive: “The commissions here were in no sense a bonus in the nature of a gratuity or an amount allowed from the profits of the business, which might or might not be paid to the employee.
Springer v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
our Supreme Court was confronted with the question whether “commissions” received by an employee pursuant to an oral employment contract constituted part of the employee’s wage for compensation purposes.
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Overruled Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
held that where an employee, who had died as a result of injuries sustained in the course of employment for a dairy company, was at the time of his death working under a contract guaranteeing a wage of $75 per month plus a 4% commission on all sales, the commission constituted a part of the empl
Marum v. Industrial Commission 305 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1956
Distinguished Marum v. Industrial Commission 305 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1956
The Commission awarded compensation based upon his entire earnings for the thirty days immediately preceding his injury basing its ruling, in part at least, , .
English v. Industrial Commission 237 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1951
English v. Industrial Commission 237 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1951
Waite v. Industrial Commission 205 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1949
Waite v. Industrial Commission 205 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1949
Miami Copper Co. v. Schoonover 178 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1947
Distinguished Miami Copper Co. v. Schoonover 178 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1947
First they say we departed from it in a , .