Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Martin v. Industrial Commission, 242 P.2d 286.

44 citing documents.

Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Comm’n, , (explaining that because "Martin’s employment created the necessity for travel, he comes within the rule stated in Harris ”).
Hypl v. Cps, Inc. for Leased Workers Corexpress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Hypl v. Cps, Inc. for Leased Workers Corexpress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Comm’n, see also Helton v. Indus.
Poole v. Industrial Commission 850 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Poole v. Industrial Commission 850 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
397, 399 , see also, e.g., Martin v. Industrial Comm’n, , (required or compensated travel is part of employment).
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 796 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1990
See, e.g., Martin v. Industrial Comm’n, , Martin v. Industrial Comm’n, , State Comp.
Estate of Plemons v. Industrial Commission 806 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Estate of Plemons v. Industrial Commission 806 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
been in the performance of his duties during the hours of his work, in the absence of evidence that he was not engaged in his master’s business, there is a presumption that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the compensation acts.’ , -05 , (emphasis in Downes).
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Id., § 10.32, at 3-100, quoted with approval in, e.g., Martin v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also Martin v. Industrial Comm’n, , State Compensation Fund v. Delgadillo, 14 Ariz.App.
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
* * *” -405 , -289 (1952).
Carlson v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Carlson v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Compensation Fund v. Delgadillo, 14 Ariz.App.
State Compensation Fund v. Delgadillo 482 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Compensation Fund v. Delgadillo 482 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
(not the same Martin), discussed at some length the application of this rule, pointing out that this rebuttable presumption can only be invoked in a case where there is an absence of any evidence of what caused the death.
State Compensation Fund v. Dungan 468 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Compensation Fund v. Dungan 468 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
a place where his duties required him to be, or where he might properly have been in the performance of his duties during the hours of his work, in the absence of evidence that he was not engaged in his master’s business, there is a presumption that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the compensation acts.’ * * *.”
Torres v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Torres v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
See Pridgen, supra; , , Faulkner v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App.
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
record, this was not unaccustomed activity.” , creates a presumption in favor of an award of compensation which presumption was not rebutted by the evidence.
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1965
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1965
He may rely upon circumstantial evidence, , , and the Commission may properly admit hearsay evidence, , .” The rule which we restate does not authorize the unrestricted use of all types of tale bearing as the exclusive basis for an award.
Roy v. Industrial Commission 397 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1964
Roy v. Industrial Commission 397 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1964
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 392 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1964
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 392 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1964
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
that when an employee is found dead from an accident where he might properly have been in the performance of his duties, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Hudgens v. Industrial Commission 321 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1958
Hudgens v. Industrial Commission 321 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1958
He may rely upon circumstantial evidence, , , and the Commission may properly admit hearsay evidence, , .
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 308 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1957
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 308 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1957
Muchmore v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 306 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1957
Muchmore v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 306 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1957
wherein we held the .facts there shown were such as to give-rise to a rebuttable presumption that deceased was within his employment at the time of accident.
Pinson v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 281 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1955
Pinson v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 281 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1955
In support of these assignments of error petitioner invokes the “going and coming” rule, , , , : “ * * * where the work is of such a nature that it creates the necessity of travel on the part of the em *25 ployee, or where the employer compensates the employee for travel to and from work, the employee is protected by the Workmen’s Compensation Act * * [ , .]
Estate of Barrett v. Barrett 278 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1954
Estate of Barrett v. Barrett 278 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1954
Petitioner seeks to prevail by an application of the “going-and-coming” rule, , , , .
Martin v. Industrial Commission 257 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1953
Martin v. Industrial Commission 257 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1953
242 * , we termed such a finding a “qualified finding”, and were it not apparent from the entire record that it was here intended as a positive finding we would set aside the award and send it back to the commission to make proper findings.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by