Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morris v. Industrial Commission, 299 P.2d 652.

31 citing documents.

Special Fund Division v. Arizona Department of Transportation 8 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Special Fund Division v. Arizona Department of Transportation 8 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Morris v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“The language of the statute ...
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 697 P.2d 1089 Ariz. 1985
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 697 P.2d 1089 Ariz. 1985
United Metro v. Industrial Commission 570 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
United Metro v. Industrial Commission 570 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
at 72 , at 655 (1956) : “Chapter 28, § 11, Laws 1939, which amended Section 1438e, R.C.1928, segregated the scheduled and unscheduled subsections and thereafter in another subsection, (d), listed the considerations for determining percentage of disability and the method for computing disability in a subse
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1973
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1973
Meador v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Meador v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
Duron v. Industrial Commission 491 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Duron v. Industrial Commission 491 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Zapien v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zapien v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Riggins v. Industrial Commission, 9 Ariz.App.
Riggins v. Industrial Commission 453 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Riggins v. Industrial Commission 453 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
Camis v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Camis v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Under subsection E of 23-1044 A.R.S., should a person lose the hand and later lose his arm, the amount of compensation received for the hand must first be deducted
Wollum v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 137 Ariz. 1966
Meador v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Meador v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The effect of successive injuries upon the computation of workmen’s
Woods v. Industrial Commission 368 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1962
Woods v. Industrial Commission 368 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1962
Weiss v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1959
Weiss v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1959
See, e. g., , ; , ; , ; Shaw v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass’n, , ; , ; Muehlebach v. Dorris-Heyman Furn.
Hurley v. Industrial Commission 318 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1957
Followed Hurley v. Industrial Commission 318 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1957
Such is the effect of our interpretation of this statute in the following cases: , ; , ; , .