Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Powell v. Industrial Commission, 451 P.2d 37.
- Wozniak v. Industrial Commission 359 P.3d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Wozniak v. Industrial Commission 359 P.3d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Davis v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 655 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Davis v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 655 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission
621 P.2d 286
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
(where average monthly wage of teacher under 9 month contract held properly determined by dividing the contract salary by 9 rather than 12).
- Holder v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 609 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Holder v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 609 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Still v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
Still v. Industrial Commission
551 P.2d 591
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
While there is authority that the amount of and the computation of premiums for workmen’s compensation insurance have some relationship to the basic wage of the employee, P.2d 143 (1948); , it cannot be seriously contended that the failure of the employer to include items of compensation for purposes of premium computations which would otherwise be considered wages within the meaning of that term as set out in A.R.S.
- Wimmer v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
Wimmer v. Industrial Commission
549 P.2d 619
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
However, the hearing officer was incorrect in his finding Number 5 , aff'd, , required petitioner’s earning capacity be determined on a nine and one-quarter month basis.
- Miller v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976
- Miller v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976
- Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Springer v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Dominquez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
-
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission
529 P.2d 732
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the Supreme Court of Arizona was forced to decide if, in the case of a teacher who was under a 9 month contract, the proper divisor in establishing an average monthly wage was 9 months, the period of the contract, or 12 months, a year’s period.
- Shaw v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1973
-
Shaw v. Industrial Commission
510 P.2d 47
Ariz. 1973
Petitioner’s , is misplaced.
- Shaw v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
Shaw v. Industrial Commission
495 P.2d 477
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
518 , and , the average monthly wage for a 9-month contract for a teacher was determined by dividing the total contract figure by the number 9.
- Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co. v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co. v. Industrial Commission
494 P.2d 398
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Pettis v. Industrial Commission, supra.
- Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Jacobsen v. Industrial Commission 462 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
-
Jacobsen v. Industrial Commission
462 P.2d 402
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
decided the proper method for determining the average monthly wage under similar circumstances, stating: “We, therefore, hold that the average monthly wage under petitioner’s employment was covered by the contract under which she was employed and that her average monthly wage should be fixed by d
- Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
-
Talley v. Industrial Commission
451 P.2d 886
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
he method approved in the case , , , used the average wage pattern of three other carpenters employed by this employer — as is provided for by section 56-952, A.C.A.1939 — to determine that petitioner’s average monthly wage was $397.76.” , , decided 27 February, 1969.