Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Goodyear Aircraft Corporation v. Gilbert, 181 P.2d 624.

72 citing documents.

Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Svienty v. Corrpro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Svienty v. Corrpro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Naglieri v. Industrial Commission 336 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Naglieri v. Industrial Commission 336 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Thus, if the employer has permitted the act, an injury may be compensable even when the employee "is engaged in an act for his own individual benefit wholly apart from his job and in no way incidental to it[.]” , see, e.g., id.
Ortiz v. Clinton 928 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ortiz v. Clinton 928 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Burnett v. Industrial Comm’n
Delgado v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delgado v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Burnett v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 764 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Burnett v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 764 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See, , accord, 1A A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 31.00 (1985).
Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 755 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1988
Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 755 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1988
Scheller v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Scheller v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Schroeder v. Industrial Commission 646 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Schroeder v. Industrial Commission 646 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
D. E. S. Youth Conservation Corps. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
D. E. S. Youth Conservation Corps. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
refer to the time, place and circumstances under which [the injury] occurred.”
Food Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
: The expressions “arising out of” and “in the course of” the employment are not synonymous; but the words “arising out of” are construed to refer to the origin or cause of the injury, and the words “in the course of” to refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which it occurred
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
1 , : “ ‘The expressions “arising out of” and “in the course of” employment are not synonymous; but the words “arising out of” are construed to refer to the origin or cause of the injury and the words “in the course of” to refer to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred.’ 71 C.J. [W
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1979
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1979
Royall, supra; Goodyear Aircraft Corp.
General Transportation, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
General Transportation, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In City Products, supra, we recited certain portions of the Arizona Constitution and Goodyear Aircraft Corporation
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
That the evidence fails to establish that the decedent herein was cognizant of the employer’s rules which he violated, or that those rules were enforced within the meaning of Goodyear Aircraft Corporation v. Gilbert * * * [ , ].
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City Products Corporation v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City Products Corporation v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
f any injury he received” or “if the co-employee’s version of the accident is correct, there was no *364 horseplay involved at all and the only issue remaining is whether the applicant’s claim should be denied for the reason that he has violated a safety rule of his employer prohibiting riding on the conveyor belt.” , and found that “the employer’s rule prohibiting riding on the belt related to the manner of accomplishing applicant’s work and was not one limiting the scope, ambit or sphere of th
Stoddard v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stoddard v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Keefe, 22 Ariz.App.
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Gilbert, supra
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Peter Kiewit Sons’ , Sears, Roebuck & , , , Mahan v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Compensation Fund v. Keefe 526 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Compensation Fund v. Keefe 526 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The “in the course of” portion of this test generally refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurred, , while the “arising out of” portion requires a causal relation between the employment and the injury.
Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
cited as authority by all parties, our Supreme Court defined “arising out of” and “in the course of employment” as follows: “ ‘The expressions “arising out of” and “in the course of” the employment are not synonymous; but the words “arising out of” are construed to refer to the origin or cause o
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
‘The words “in the course of” refers [sic] to the time, place, and circumstances under which it occurred.’ Goodyear Aircraft Corp., [Ariz. Division] v. Gilbert, [ , 181 P.2d [624] 626] supra; , .