Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kelsey v. Industrial Commission, 286 P.2d 195.

30 citing documents.

Massie v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1976
Massie v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1976
Ringgold v. Industrial Commission 518 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Ringgold v. Industrial Commission 518 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Moore v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
is contrary to this opinion.
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Harris *390 v. Industrial Commission
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Young v. Hodgman & Mac Vicar
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.
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
ioner has the opportunity to cross-examine and go fully into the matter before the commission may base an award thereon in whole or in part, and that these confidential reports cannot be considered as evidence upon which, a final award at a rehearing can be' founded.” In cases where the Industrial' Commission has refused evidence our Supreme Court has upheld them, , 286-P.2d 195 (1955).
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 375 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1962
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 375 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1962
Lowry v. Industrial Commission 375 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1962
Lowry v. Industrial Commission 375 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1962
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
There is no question but that the findings of the Commission should be affirmed if supported by competent evidence (e. g.: , ; , ).
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, , .
Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 320 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1958
Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 320 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1958
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 316 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1957
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 316 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1957
What we said in Kelsey v.. Indus *80 trial Commission, , , is apropos here: “Petitioner further contends that because he is unable to find regular employment he was then and is now permanently and totally disabled within the meaning of the law.
McCluskey v. Industrial Commission 296 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1956
McCluskey v. Industrial Commission 296 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1956

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by