Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McKay v. Industrial Commission, 438 P.2d 757.

183 citing documents.

State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Comm'n, ("Whether prior decisions of the highest court in a state are to be disaffirmed is a question for the court which makes the decisions.
State of Arizona v. Bayron Perez Agueda 513 P.3d 1112 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Bayron Perez Agueda 513 P.3d 1112 Ariz. 2022
Comm’n, –93 (1968), a closer examination of Sutton reveals that its conclusion does not comport with Arizona law.
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 and Hartford Accident & indemnity/gallagher Bassett 318 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
Comm’n, (“Whether prior decisions of the highest court in a state are to be disaffirmed is a question for the court which makes the decisions.
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Followed Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, , City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Francis v. Arizona Department of Transportation 963 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Francis v. Arizona Department of Transportation 963 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“Any other rule would lead to chaos in our judicial system.” See McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 327 , 458 P.2d at 531 (citing McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
We are not at liberty to decide otherwise, , and thus conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict and in instructing the jury that “useable amount” is not an element of the offense in question.
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. INDUS. COM'N 829 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. INDUS. COM'N 829 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See, e.g., McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, , Espinosa v. Industrial Comm’n
Southwest Restaurant Systems v. Industrial Commission 825 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Southwest Restaurant Systems v. Industrial Commission 825 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See, e.g., McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See, *360 e.g., McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Campbell v. Industrial Commission 799 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Campbell v. Industrial Commission 799 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Campbell’s argument that Arizona has rejected the “someone sometime” rule is based upon his interpretation of our supreme court’s ruling in McKay v. Industrial Comm’n
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 761 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 761 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Rambeau 730 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Rambeau 730 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Because this court is bound by the supreme court’s interpretation of subsection (D), , we have assumed for the purposes of this opinion that subsection (D) is unconstitutional.
Bade v. Arizona Department of Transportation 722 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bade v. Arizona Department of Transportation 722 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985