Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nicholson v. Industrial Commission, 259 P.2d 547.

72 citing documents.

Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Muscat v. creative/akande Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Muscat v. creative/akande Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, and then quoting Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Indus.
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
Commn, , and we will not impose “[a] burden or liability not within the terms or spirit of the law,” Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Indus.
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comm’n, , ); , (courts “will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself.”).
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Martin-Costa v. Kiger 235 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Martin-Costa v. Kiger 235 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 219 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2009
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 219 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2009
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Schwager v. VHS Acquisition Corp./Vanguard Health Management 142 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Schwager v. VHS Acquisition Corp./Vanguard Health Management 142 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Comm’n, , (“Generally injuries incurred by the employee while leaving the premises[,] collecting pay or getting his clothes or tools, within a reasonable time after termination of the employment, or within the course of employment, are normally incidents of the employment relation....
Putz v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 51 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Putz v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 51 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Noble v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 932 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Noble v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 932 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Claimant principally relies on Jayo and on Nicholson v. Industrial Comm’n
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
at 116 , 776 P.2d at 794 (citing Nicholson v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 776 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1989
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 776 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1989
Pettinato v. Industrial Commission 698 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pettinato v. Industrial Commission 698 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
(although this court will favor a liberal construction of the Act in order to effectuate its remedial purposes, we will not impose burdens and liabilities that are not within its terms or spirit).
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hansen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Royall , , dealt with the “personal comfort” rule which treats activities such as ...
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
The administrative law judge found that the unpleasant task 4 , which frowns upon “generous interpretations” and “freehandedness.” The words used by this court in Nicholson are applicable to the case at bench but do not support the result reached by the administrative law judge.
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
Downes v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1976
we noted that lunching on the premises is generally recognized to be within the course of employment, and likewise we noted the many decisions to the effect that getting fresh air, smoking, resting, eating food and ice cream, quenching thirst, using a telephone, toilet or other facilit
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stephenson v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In Nicholson v. Industrial Commission, 76 * P.2d 547 (1953), where the claimant was injured shortly after his employment had been terminated the Court noted: “Generally injuries incurred by the employee while leaving the premises collecting pay or getting his clothes or tools, within a reasonable time after termination of the employment, or within the course of employme
Pottinger v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Pottinger v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
After noting that the rule of personal comfort finds acceptance in Arizona, , “ , we noted that lunching on the premises is generally recognized to be within the course of employment, and likewise we noted the many decisions to the effect that getting fresh air, smoking, resting, eating food and ice cream, quenching thirst, using a telephone, toilet or other facilit
Pauley v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1973
Pauley v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1973
In Nicholson v. Industrial Commission, 76 Ariz.. 105, 110, we noted that lunching on the premises is generally recognized to be within the course of employment, and likewise we noted the many decisions to the effect that getting fresh air, smoking, resting, eating food and ice cream, quenching thirst, using a telephone, toilet or other facility, washing and gathe
Parise v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Parise v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
stated: “ ‘It is not in the power of this court to “give” but it definitely is its duty to interpret the law to insure that what the law gives is not withheld.’ ”
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
As to what is meant by the term “liberal construction” within the context of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, , that: “A liberal construction is not synonymous with a generous interpretation.
Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
There is no question but that Arizona gives effect to this “personal comfort doctrine.”