Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 320 P.2d 950.

69 citing documents.

Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint 432 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint 432 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, (stating that “the findings of administrative agencies must be explicit to enable the reviewing court to review the decision intelligently and to ascertain whether the facts as found afford a reasonable basis for the decision or be sufficiently definite and certain to permit of judicial interpretation”).
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
( , was derived from a statute that granted the original power to rehear and “not from broader inherent powers vested in the agency”).
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 4 Thirty years before Post
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.
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
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
Massie v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1976
Massie v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1976
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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
Terrell v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Terrell v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Greer v. Industrial Commission 514 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Greer v. Industrial Commission 514 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
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.
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
Motorola, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Motorola, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
ot to wait for the Commission’s ultimate ruling on its petition for rehearing, but rather to remove jurisdiction of the claim to this Court: “Consequently, because the petitioner appealed to this court before the Commission acted thereon, the effect was to waive further action on the second petition and oust the Commission of any jurisdiction to proceed further.”
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
First, , the court affirmed the Commission’s power to make an award without a hearing, so long as a full and impartial hearing is granted to a dissatisfied party upon his filing a timely protest; Second, , the court confirmed that the granting of the first motion to rehear the award had the effect of setting aside or vacating the award and that when the rehearing of the cause was on its merits the subsequent award supersedes the former award; Third, the court reaffirmed that the burden of proof
German v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
German v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
We discussed the effect of such a , stating that ‘the granting of a first motion to rehear the award has the effect of setting aside or vacating that award and when on rehearing the cause on its merits, the subsequent award supersedes the former.’ Petitioner’s timely motion to rehear had the effect of setting aside the March 17, 1
Russell v. Industrial Commission 456 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1969
Russell v. Industrial Commission 456 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1969
We discussed the effect of such a , stating that “the granting of a first motion to rehear the award has the effect of setting aside or vacating that award and when on rehearing the cause on its merits, the subsequent award supersedes the former.” Petitioner’s timely motion to rehear had the effect of setting aside the March 17, 1
Talley v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
The Findings and Award of January 26, 1966 are res judicata, , .
Pedigo v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
Pedigo v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
PER CURIAM: The Findings and Award of October 31, 1966 are res judicata, , .
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1969
Further, we have held that 'while a party has the privilege of applying for a second rehearing, he is not compelled to do so in order to exhaust his administrative remedies.’
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
Davis v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1968
extends to a claimant the protection of a rehearing after a rehearing if he can show grounds which would entitle him to a second rehearing.
Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966