Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sproul v. Industrial Commission, 370 P.2d 279.

48 citing documents.

Pate v. smith's/sedgwick Cms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pate v. smith's/sedgwick Cms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, –33 (1962) (“[I]t is not essential under our statute that specific findings of fact be made on every issue which might be involved in a hearing, provided that the findings as made are of such a nature that they necessarily dispose of all the material issues involved.” (quoting Foster v. Indus.
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
Villanueva v. Industrial Commission 714 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Villanueva v. Industrial Commission 714 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
with Foster v. Industrial Commission, supra.
M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 602 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1979
M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 602 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1979
The standard governing the specificity required of a workmen’s , where we stated that: “[The] findings as made [at a workmen’s compensation hearing] should be of such a nature that they necessarily dispose of *96 all the material issues involved.” (citation omitted) Examination of the award entered in the instant case reveals that although it could
Dean v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1976
Dean v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1976
See , 2 Larson, supra, at 10-130 to 10-133.
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Van Duzee v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Masters v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Masters v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Specifically, , requiring the award to be set aside for incomplete findings.
Robinson v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Robinson v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
It is the opinion of the Court that the evidence adduced at the hearing meets the “open labor market” , and we find no abuse of discretion in the Commission’s denial of additional hearings.
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Patterson v. Industrial Commission 459 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Patterson v. Industrial Commission 459 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Andreason v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Andreason v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
However difficult it may be in individual cases to arrive at a fact determination as to whether a disabled workman, in a competitve market, can sell his services and for how much, , we do not feel that the members of the Commission may base an award solely on a leading question or self-serving statement made by an attorney for the fund.
Malinski v. Industrial Commission 438 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Malinski v. Industrial Commission 438 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
•f» “Suffice it to say that the' findings are too indefinite and the award is set aside.”
Fernandez v. Industrial Commission 424 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1967
Fernandez v. Industrial Commission 424 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1967
Sproul v. Industrial Commission, supra [ , ]
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
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hughes v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
to secure employment in a competitive labor market the evidence shows * * [t]he Commission’s award of 12.31% loss of earning capacity is not reasonably supported by the evidence.” 136
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
The rule, , is: “Although it is not essential that specific findings of fact be made on every issue involved in a hearing the findings as made should be of such a nature that they necessarily dispose of all the material issues involved.” The record shows that petitioner injured his shoulder in the accident
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
-136 , -285 , , , 939 Examination of the instant case in the light of the above principles makes clear that the Commission erred in basing its award entirely upon the post-injury earnings.
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1965
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1965
Magma Copper Company v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1964
Magma Copper Company v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1964
Tatman v. Provincial Homes 382 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
Tatman v. Provincial Homes 382 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
(Emphasis added) , ; , .