Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley, 250 P.2d 992.

68 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
Comm’n v. Pressley, (“[T]here is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”).
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. 416 P.3d 803 Ariz. 2018
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. 416 P.3d 803 Ariz. 2018
Comm’n v. Pressley, (“[T]here is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”).
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Comm’n v. Pressley, P.2d 992 (1952) .
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley, , ).
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley, , , Boswell, , ; Hazine, , .
Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley
Mail Boxes, U.S.A. v. Industrial Commission 871 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley, , and S.H.
Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
we announced: The [Workers’ Compensation] Act was enacted primarily for the benefit of the injured employee and his dependents, and secondarily for the benefit of the employer.
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1985
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1985
The Issue Petitioner argues that such an interpretation of § 23-1024(A) , (Pressley III).
Lavello v. Wilson 722 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lavello v. Wilson 722 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-997 (1952); , -811 (1970).
Oliver v. State Land Department 692 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Oliver v. State Land Department 692 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
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
the court stated: “If petitioner was covered by workmen’s compensation, then his compensation would be determined by The Industrial Commission of Arizona, and the superior court would not have jurisdiction to try the issues presented; therefore, under the procedure that has been followed in this
Sneed v. Belt 635 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Sneed v. Belt 635 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Appellant relies heavily on the Pressley trilogy for its definition of “accepting compensation.” , (Pressley I), aff’d and expanded on rehearing, , (Press-ley II); , (Pressley III).
Stephens v. Textron, Inc. 619 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1980
Stephens v. Textron, Inc. 619 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1980
* * * The public policy has been, first, to protect the employee whose injury arose in and out of the course of his employment; and second, to protect the Compensation fund administered by the commission, which indirectly benefits the employer.”
Spear v. Industrial Commission 562 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Spear v. Industrial Commission 562 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Petitioner next argues, at 415 , at 994 (1952) (the third Pressley case) that: “4.
K. W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble 567 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Stell v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stell v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In his argument to this court petitioner points to the guiding principles behind the Workmen’s , : “The Act was enacted primarily for the benefit of the injured employee and his dependents .
Henshaw v. Mays 512 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Henshaw v. Mays 512 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and Ledbetter v. Savittieri, 10 Ariz.App.
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
see, also, United States v. Miller, 331 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1964); Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Frazier, 289 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1961); and Taylor v. Hubbell, 188 F.2d 106 (9th Cir. 1951).
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1970
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1970
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
holds that the rights of the Commission are subrogation rights and that no rights either direct or indirect remain in the employee.
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Ledbetter v. Savittieri 455 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Ledbetter v. Savittieri 455 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969