Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stanley v. Moan, 227 P.2d 389.

30 citing documents.

Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Allen v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 602 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Allen v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 602 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
.” 74 Ariz. at 349 and 350, 248 P.2d at 998 and 999 A statement of like import is found in Buzard v. Griffin, (supra): “In this jurisdiction the triers of fact may not arbitrarily reject evidence where there is nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in circumstances which cast suspicion u
Carabetta v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Carabetta v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
: “While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested *243 witness, it likewise is the law that it may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon, Br
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested witness, it likewise is the law that it may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon, Bragg v
Foster v. Industrial Commission 441 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Foster v. Industrial Commission 441 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , .” 74 Ariz. at 349 , 248 P.2d at 998 .
Ireland v. Industrial Commission 370 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1962
Ireland v. Industrial Commission 370 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1962
It is the law of this state that “where evidence of an interested witness is corroborated by disinterested witnesses, a rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action by the triers of fact.” ] ; In re Gary’s Estate, *138
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc. 370 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1962
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc. 370 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1962
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
While the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard the only reasonable inference, , , there are here admittedly other inferences which might be drawn.
Sheridan v. Industrial Commission 327 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1958
Sheridan v. Industrial Commission 327 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1958
Stanley v. Industrial Commission 251 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1952
Stanley v. Industrial Commission 251 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1952
to which reference is made for a recitation of the facts.
Ratley v. Industrial Commission 248 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1952
Ratley v. Industrial Commission 248 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1952
In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , .
Martin v. Industrial Commission 242 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1952
Martin v. Industrial Commission 242 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1952