Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gene Autry Productions, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 195 P.2d 143.

26 citing documents.

Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission, 22 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
While there is authority that the amount of and the computation of premiums for workmen’s compensation insurance have some relationship to the basic wage of the employee, P.2d 143 (1948); , it cannot be seriously contended that the failure of the employer to include items of compensation for purposes of premium computations which would otherwise be considered wages within the meaning of that term as set out in A.R.
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
§ 23-1041 E is an initiative measure 1 adopted by popular vote in 1948, obviously in response to problems typified by the Arizona Supreme Court’s P.2d 143 (1948).
Miller v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976
Miller v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co. v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz.App.
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
3 , , we pointed out that one of the primary duties of the Commission is to insure the solvency of the state fund, that insurance is based upon the law of average and, in referring to the duties of the Commission, we said: “We, therefore, think it is clear that the intent of the legislature was not to estab
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In determining the ‘average monthly wage’ of an employee entitled to compensation, the work record is a factor to be considered when the injured employee is engaged in periodic or *189 spot employments which, , ; , ; , .
Pacey v. Industrial Commission 377 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1963
Pacey v. Industrial Commission 377 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1963
we said: “In determining the ‘average monthly wage’ of an employee entitled to compensation, the work record is a factor to be considered when the injü , , , .
Collins v. American Buslines, Inc. 286 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1955
Collins v. American Buslines, Inc. 286 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1955
1092 ; Gene Autry Productions, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, 1948, , .
Field v. Industrial Commission 238 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1951
Field v. Industrial Commission 238 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1951
In determining the “average monthly wage” of an employee entitled to compensation, the work record is a , ; , ; , .
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
A partial list of cases from this jurisdiction involving "orders" entered by the commission, or its right to enter same, , ; and Industrial Commission v. Meddock, supra; , ; Haggard v. Industrial Commission, supra, and O'Neill v. Martori, supra.
Faulkner v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1950
Faulkner v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1950
Gene Autry Productions, , .
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
In * , , we thoroughly considered conditions and reservations insisted upon by the commission before issuing a policy to one engaged in making motion pictures.