Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Industrial Commission v. Meddock, 180 P.2d 580.

39 citing documents.

Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ajf Custom v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 688 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 688 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
It is not the appellation which the parties give to the relationship, , but rather the objective nature of the relationship, determined upon an analysis of the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case, which is determinative.
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Dibble v. Garcia, 98 N.M.
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
El Dorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, supra.
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1979
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1979
with Fry v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App.
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
El Dorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
El Dorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 519 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1974
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 519 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1974
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Toughill v. Melcher 179 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
Nochta v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nochta v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
left largely on his own, it is the right to control rather than the exercise of that right which establishes an employer-employee relationship: “It is the right to control rather than the fact that the employer does control that determines the status of the parties, and this right to control is, in turn, tested by those standards applicable to the facts at hand.”
Posey v. Industrial Commission 350 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1960
Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Bajbek 284 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1955
Scott v. Rhyan 275 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1954
Scott v. Rhyan 275 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1954
Industrial Commission v. Meddock, 1947, , .
Carnes v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1952
Carnes v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1952
The employer, having the right to direct the time and the place in which the servie.es are to be .rendered, *269 the persons to or for whom the services are to he rendered, and the degree and amount of said services, exercises supervision and control over the person performing them as it is duly bound to do.” , , we said: “It is the right to control rather than the fact that the employer does control that determines the status of the parties, and this right to control is, in turn, tested by thos
Industrial Commission of Arizona v. J. & J. CONST. CO. 231 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1951
Industrial Commission of Arizona v. J. & J. CONST. CO. 231 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1951
See Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial Comm., supra; Red Rover Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm., supra; , ; , .
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
O'Neill v. Martori 212 P.2d 994 Ariz. 1949
O'Neill v. Martori 212 P.2d 994 Ariz. 1949
Both the trial court and the Commission h'ad the benefit of numerous pronouncements of this court as to the proper legal tests to apply in distinguishing independent contractors from employees, , , , , being two of the latest decisions.
Blasdell v. Industrial Commission 181 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1947
Blasdell v. Industrial Commission 181 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1947