Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite McKay v. Industrial Commission, 438 P.2d 757.
- State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
Overruled
State v. Suarez
461 P.2d 497
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
We point out that we have no power to overrule our Supreme Court
- Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Korngold v. Wray 455 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Korngold v. Wray 455 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Ledbetter v. Savittieri 455 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
-
Ledbetter v. Savittieri
455 P.2d 1015
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
We are not in a position to overrule the Moseley and Nevelle decisions, even were we inclined to do so, , and hence pass on to the second contention presented.
- Collins v. L. M. White Contracting Co. 449 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
-
Collins v. L. M. White Contracting Co.
449 P.2d 54
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
A recent forceful statement with reference to the authority of the Court of Appeals can be found in Arizona Supreme Court Cause No. 9168 PR entitled McKAY v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARI *41 ZONA, [ , ], an opinion filed on 14 March 1968.
- Fiske v. Soland 448 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- Fiske v. Soland 448 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- England v. Ally Ong Hing 448 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- England v. Ally Ong Hing 448 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- State v. Meek 445 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
-
State v. Meek
445 P.2d 463
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Any other rule would lead to chaos in our judicial system-justice Court [of Tempe Precinct, Maricopa, County] v. Keswick, , .”
- Reed v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- Reed v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- Webb v. Dixon 447 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- Webb v. Dixon 447 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- Burns v. Wheeler 446 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
- Burns v. Wheeler 446 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
- Vallentine v. Azar 445 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- Vallentine v. Azar 445 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- Rencehausen v. Western Greyhound Lines 444 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- Rencehausen v. Western Greyhound Lines 444 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
- State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
-
State v. Stone
443 P.2d 933
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In view of the Miser, Hutchins, Angle, Best and Barnum decisions, which this court has no prerogative to overrule or modify, , the only question here is whether the legislature intended the subject claims statute to apply to tort claims.
- Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
-
Pesqueira v. Talbot
441 P.2d 73
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
§ 28-1101 et seq., makes the doctrine somewhat less necessary from a socio-economic standpoint, and though the doctrine is unattractive in that it does not fit neatly into the broad mosaic of our law, as an intermediate appellate court we are precluded from examining whether this doctrine judicially created should be judicially abrogated, , 1 Accordingly, we address ourselves to the task of determining the boundaries of this doctrine, which has given rise to a plethora of judicial decisions, to
- Myers v. Rollette 439 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1968
- Myers v. Rollette 439 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1968