Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission, 276 P.2d 534.

39 citing documents.

Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n, , (an opponent has a right to cross-examination “by decision of this court if the commission is to use as evidence reports of investigators and doctors or ex parte affidavits”); Obersteiner v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“The right to cross-exam
Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
218, 221 , Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n
Tyree v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Tyree v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
218 , citing Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Simpkins v. Industrial Comm’n, P.2d 47 (1935).
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
.” 89 Ariz. at 279 , 361 P.2d at 405 .
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
and Garza v. Industrial Commission, 17 Ariz.App.
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
“ * * * , , 535: ‘ * * * When an award is set aside, it is the right and duty of the commission to reconsider all the issues of fact involved in the proceedings, including the taking of new evidence if available.
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 448 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 448 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
D, , Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
Vidal v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Vidal v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
and the case to the commission for a trial de novo, and that it is not only the right but the duty of the commission, if any new evidence is available which will throw more light upon the case, to see that such evidence, if admissible under the rules of law, is properly presented, so that its final award may be based’, upon the true facts.” A , where the court stated: “When an award is set aside, it is the-right and duty of the commission to-reconsider all of the issues of fact involved in the p
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
the issue was whether the Commission had a duty to reconsider all the issues of fact and take new testimony, if such was available, when an award has been set aside by this Court.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 429 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Davis v. Industrial Commission 429 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
wherein our Supreme Court stated: “The petition for rehearing sought the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Hannon v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hannon v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The Arizona Supreme Court has also stated on more than one occasion, that the parties have the right of cross examination, , , ” .
Nye v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Nye v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
He could no more be deprived of this on the retrial than on the original trial.” at 114
International Metal Products Division of McGraw-Edison Co. v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1965
International Metal Products Division of McGraw-Edison Co. v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1965
Parsons v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1965
Parsons v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1965
Jones v. Industrial Commission 401 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Jones v. Industrial Commission 401 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Avenente v. Smouse 398 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Avenente v. Smouse 398 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The Arizona Supreme Court has also stated on more than one occasion, that the parties have the right of cross examination
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
As concerns the second basic issue before this Court, namely, whether the Commission erred in its finding that petitioner suffers no residual disability attributable to his industrial accident February 10, 1960, we find it unnecessary to make a , , 535 : “ * * * When an award is set aside, it is the right and duty of the commission to reconsider all the issues of fact involved in the proceedings, including the taking of new evidence if available.
Rojas v. Kimble 361 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1961
Rojas v. Kimble 361 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1961
We have repeatedly held that a trial de novo means a new trial “as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court.” [ , ], , ; Vazzano v: Superior Court, , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
Montierth v. State Land Department 324 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1958
Montierth v. State Land Department 324 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1958

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by