Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission, 399 P.2d 664.

28 citing documents.

T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, -61 , (citing Whitehead v. Keene Roofing Co., 43 So.2d 464 (Fla.1949)).
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Findley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 660 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Findley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 660 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 582 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 582 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
We believe that so long as the hearing officer was correct in finding that if the incident was a suicide it was compensable within the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Graver Tank & , it was unnecessary for him to determine whether the incident was an accident or a suicide.
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 664 (1965); , Stevens v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Wood v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1972
Wood v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1972
Wood v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wood v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
to-wit: “ * * * We believe the better rule to-be that where the original work-connected injuries suffered by the employee result in his becoming devoid of normal judgment and dominated by a disturbance of mind directly caused by his injury and its consequences, such as severe pain and despair, t
Rose v. Industrial Commission 444 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rose v. Industrial Commission 444 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
ious to the injury should be the basic wage for computing compensation but if the employment is intermittent for reasons over which the employee has (no) (sic) control or the loss of time is a common and ordinary incident to the particular employment, the Commission may properly average a longer period to determine a wage base.” In Graver Tank & , the court said: “The evidence indicates that during the last six and one-half months, employee earned about $7800.
Baxter v. Industrial Commission 430 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Baxter v. Industrial Commission 430 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
quoted with approval the Florida court in Whitehead v. Keene Roofing Co., 43 So.2d 464, 465 (Fla.1949): “'(w)hile it may be an independent intervening cause in some cases, it is certainly not so in those cases where the incontrovertible evidence shows that, without the injury, there would have b
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Harper v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ill.2d 103 , 180 N.E.2d 480 (1962); Burnight v. Industrial Commission, 181 Cal.App.2d 816 , 5 Cal.Rptr.
Smiles v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Smiles v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by