Cited by

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

69 citing documents.

Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
It is our considered opinion that the pronouncements on this point made in the Hershkowitz cases are unsound in principle and should be and they are hereby expressly overruled.” , we find the following statement at Page 327 of the Arizona Reports, at page 954 of 320 P.2d: “It has been construed to mean under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies that the Commission must be given the opportunity to correct its errors before this court will entertain a writ
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The mere statement that these matters and others have been given consideration does not save this award from the appearance of being arbitrary.”
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
*394 , : "Third, the Commission by its purported finding number 14 states that it has given full consideration to each of the matters set forth in Section 23-1044, 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
.Un.der this doctrine, the commission must be given the opportunity to correct its errors before resort is had to provisions for judicial review
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 381 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1963
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 381 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1963
Harambasic v. Barrett & Hilp & Macco Corp.
Barnard v. Industrial Commission 368 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1962
Barnard v. Industrial Commission 368 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1962
See, e. g., Wammack v. Industrial Commission,'
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
this Court stated: “ * * * 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.
Hatfield v. Industrial Commission 361 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1961
Hatfield v. Industrial Commission 361 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1961
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 347 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1959
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 347 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1959
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
When, however, the Commission does not make the required findings as to earning capacity or where such findings are not supported by competent evidence, this Court will, and on many occasions has, set aside the award (e. g.: , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , 237 P.