Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Russell v. Industrial Commission, 456 P.2d 918.

144 citing documents.

Best v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Best v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cauley v. Industrial Commission 475 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Criticized Cauley v. Industrial Commission 475 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The award of 21 February 1969 was made prior to a , which criticized the practice of affirming previous awards as a source of procedural confusion.
Motorola, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Motorola, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Petitioner contends that “The Commission was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in failing to consider the petition for rehearing filed by petitioner on December 10, 1969.” The action of 21 November 1969 was an award, it being a “finding or decision of the Commission of the amount of compensation or benefit due.”
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
1 the award became final.
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Abounader v. Industrial Commission 473 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Two cases primarily lead us to this conclusion: , and the second is Davis v. Industrial Commission, supra.
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
301 , , filed on 27 May 1970, , upon Industrial Commission Rule 38, therein ■quoted in full.
Moore v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Boyd v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Boyd v. Industrial Commission 470 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
” We have reviewed the record and it is our opinion that the attack upon the petitioner’s credibility was adequate to support the final conclusion of The Industrial Commission that the petitioner had not borne her burden of proof.
German v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
German v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
at 552 and 553, at 922 and 923 (1969): “In the instant case, petitioner filed a timely protest and petition for rehearing of the March 17, 1965 award.
Meadows v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Meadows v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Benites v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1970
Benites v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1970
in which we said : “ * * * The Industrial Commission has many thousand applications for compensation each year.
Millikan v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Millikan v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The practice of affirming findings set aside by the granting of a hearing or rehearing is a source of procedural confusion and should not continue.”
Smith v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Smith v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In Russell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 104 * P.2d 918 (1969), the Supreme Court discussed an earlier decision relating to the meaning of the term “award” as that term is used in the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
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
Salmi v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Kuchinski v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kuchinski v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
when there is a timely protest and petition for hearing or rehearing, the effect is to set aside the previous findings and award.
Dennis v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 461 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Dennis v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 461 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Estrada v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Estrada v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Godwin v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Godwin v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission, Ariz., filed 24 October 1969 (No. 9686-PR).
Patterson v. Industrial Commission 459 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Criticized Patterson v. Industrial Commission 459 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bergstresser v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1969
Bergstresser v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1969
Russell v. Industrial Commission (City of Tucson)
Luedecke v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Luedecke v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
The Commission action of March 17, 1965, specifically found that petitioner was ‘not entitled to compensation,’ and thus was an award within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation statute.”