Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gaumer v. Industrial Commission, 382 P.2d 673.

30 citing documents.

Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fayette A/C /Colorado v. Rickard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 FAYETTE A/C /COLORADO v. RICKARD Decision of the Court (1975), P.2d 673 (1963), compel a different outcome.
Noble v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 932 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Noble v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 932 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
To support its position, Transamerica principally relies on Gaumer v. Industrial Comm’n
Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 755 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1988
Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 755 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1988
Food Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food Products Corp. v. Industrial Commission 630 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
On the other hand, , where the employee was a pilot who had agreed to deliver an airplane to a third person on his day off.
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Industrial Commission 607 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1979
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1979
Wyckoff v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gonzales v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Gaumer v. Industrial Comm’n.
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The Supreme Court of our State said: “Where an injury is suffered by an employee while engaged in acts for his own purposes or benefit [other than acts necessary for His personal comfort and convenience while at work] such injury is not in the course of his employment.” , ; accord, Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Gilbert, supra.
GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
See Gaumer v. Industrial Comm’n.
Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
We agree with Justice Udall’s , that where an injury is suffered by an employee while engaged in acts for his own purposes or benefits, other than acts necessary for his personal comfort and convenience while at *151 work, such injury is not in the course of his employment.
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
Aquino v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Aquino v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
clearly points out: “Where an injury is suffered by an employee while engaged in acts for his own purposes or benefit (other than acts necessary for his personal comfort and convenience while at work) such injury is not in the course of his' employment, * =1= *” 94 Ariz. at page 198 , 382 P.2d a
Edwards v. Industrial Commission 385 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1963
Edwards v. Industrial Commission 385 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1963
we upheld the award of the Industrial Commission, denying benefits for the reason that the accident was not one that arose in the course of decedent’s employment.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by