Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ross v. Industrial Commission, 307 P.2d 612.

44 citing documents.

Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 243 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 243 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Therefore, to be consistent with the constitutional command and statutory goal, the wage base should realistically reflect a claimant’s actual monthly earning capacity, see Hershkowitz v. Arizona Highway Dep’t, , overruled in part by Ross v. Industrial Comm’n, , and the Act should be construed broadly to effectuate this goal.
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
We assume that, “if given a complete chance to pass upon the matter, [the administrative agency] will decide correctly.” Ross v. Industrial Comm’n, -12
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
The purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency the opportunity to correct its errors, see Ross v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Wammack v. Industrial Comm’n, , but the doctrine is also limited and imposed pursuant to statute and/or applicable administrative agency rules.
Martinez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 856 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Martinez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 856 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hershkouwitz v. Ariz. Highway Dep’t, , overruled on other grounds, Ross (Elbert) v. Industrial Comm’n, , see A.R.S.
Obersteiner v. Industrial Commission 779 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Obersteiner v. Industrial Commission 779 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Stephens, 114 Ariz. at 94 , 559 P.2d at 214 (-12 , ).
Pena v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 683 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pena v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 683 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
appeal after remand , , the Supreme Court approved the use of another formula based on the maximum the claimant could have earned in the employment at the time of injury.
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brooks v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App.
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Stephens v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Stephens v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
It is based upon the assumption, -12 , that the “administrative agency, if given a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide correctly.” Our rule that we will not consider on review issues not raised at all before the Commission must be contrasted with the failure of the losing party to raise specific issues on
Larson v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Larson v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
It is based upon the assumption, -12 , that the “administrative agency, if given a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide correctly.” Petitioner next contends that her due process right to a fair and impartial hearing was violated when the decision was rendered by a hearing officer who did not actually hear
Ross v. Industrial Commission 540 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1975
Ross v. Industrial Commission 540 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1975
Ross v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ross v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In further support of our holding, we cite the following Arizona Industrial Commission cases: , , Fernandez v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App.
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
We have held that application for a rehearing is prerequisite to judicial review of industrial commission action, Ross v. In *295 dustrial Commission
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Overruled Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
[Hershkowitz was overruled, in part, , ]
Martin v. Industrial Commission 422 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Martin v. Industrial Commission 422 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
which held: “ * * * an injured workman must first file a petition for rehearing and procure a commission ruling thereon before he can have the matter reviewed in this court.” There is discussion of this in Flannery v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
* * * ” , we find the following statement: “It seems to us it is implicit within the provisions of section 23-951, subd.
State Ex Rel. Church v. Arizona Corp. Commission 382 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1963
State Ex Rel. Church v. Arizona Corp. Commission 382 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1963
We have held that application for a rehearing is prerequisite to judicial review of industrial commission action
Knape v. Brown 342 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1959
Knape v. Brown 342 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1959
See, , ; , , and the cases cited therein.
Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 320 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1958
Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 320 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1958
Ackel v. Ackel 318 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1957
Ackel v. Ackel 318 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1957
In order to exercise that right, a party must bring himself within the conditions prescribed by the statute conferring the right, otherwise he has no right of appeal.” Accord: , ; , 127 P. 725 .