Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Industrial Commission, 449 P.2d 291.

44 citing documents.

Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.g., Royall, 106 Ariz. at 349 , 476 P.2d at 159 (injury not compensable merely because it occurred during work hours and on work premises); City of Phoenix v. Industrial Comm’n, , *520 (same).
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The supreme court specifically overruled McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, , (injury resulting from an accident does not arise out of employment unless employee is subjected to some special risk or danger on the employer’s premises) and expressly disapproved of City of Phoenix v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Inman v. Industrial Comm’n, 9 Ariz.App.
Driscoll v. Harmon 601 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1979
Driscoll v. Harmon 601 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1979
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Peetz v. Industrial Commission 604 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks
Knoop v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Knoop v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-2 , , 123—4, -5 (1969); Pauley, supra, 109 Ariz. at 300-1 , 508 P.2d at 1162-3 .
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In the case of City of Phoenix v. Industrial Commission [ , ], cited in Royall, supra [ , ], the court stated: “ ‘The causative danger must be peculiar to the work [.
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hunley v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
quoting, McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks
Pottinger v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Pottinger v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The difficulty of analogizing or qualifying the paucity of decisions in this precise area is compounded by the fact that Sacks relied heavily on certain legal principles set forth in McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Sacks v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz. App. S3
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
City of Phoenix v. Industrial Comm’n.
Pauley v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1973
Overruled Pauley v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1973
Accordingly, McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, , , *302 (1969), and Inman v. Industrial Commission, 9 Ariz.App.
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Sendejaz v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App.
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Wyckoff v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wyckoff v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
stated: “ ‘We believe a fair interpretation of the term “arising out of” to be that the cause producing the accident must flow from a source within the employment.
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
Royall v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1970
This Court has discussed the terms “arising out of” and “in the course of” in a number of cases
Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
quoting from McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, etc., , see also Whitington v. Industrial Commission, 1
Peters v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Peters v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
These elements have been defined by the Supreme Court in McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks No. 536, , and reiterated in City of Phoenix v. Industrial Commission of Ari *557 zona, , and that definition will not be reiterated here.
Whitington v. Industrial Commission 468 P.2d 926 Ariz. 1970
Whitington v. Industrial Commission 468 P.2d 926 Ariz. 1970
we held that the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not cover an employee injured on his employer’s premises after his work was completed, while riding an elevator to the basement, on the way to his car in which he intended to drive home.
Sill v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sill v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The Supreme Court has defined the term “[an] accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” , : “An injury or accident occurs in the course of his employment if the employee is injured while he is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is employed and at the place where he may reasonably be during that time.
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
that: “ * * * Protection to workmen and their dependents is limited to injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and we recognize that in no event must the workmen’s compensation law be converted into a general health and accident coverage.” , we said: “The circumstances must be such that the activity engaged in, at the time of the accident, is an incident of the employment.” Therefore, to fix the rate of pay on a 12-month basis would be including three months for which
Inman v. Industrial Commission 450 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Inman v. Industrial Commission 450 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969