Cited by

Comm’n, –71 ¶¶ 10–17 (2005) (discussing history and development of workers’ compensation in Arizona); see also The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910, at 881–87 (John S. Goff ed., 1991); John D. Leshy, The Making of the Arizona Constitution, 20 Ariz. St.

Comm’n, ¶ 35 (2005) (striking down a different part of the statute because it expanded the constitution’s proof requirements).

Comm’n, n.6 (2005) (discussing studies that demonstrate talking on cell phones while driving is “extremely dangerous”); Thomas E. Sherzan, “Talk 2 U L8R”—Why Cell Phones and Driving Have “G2G”: An Analysis of the Dangers of Cell Phone Use While Driving, 59 Drake L. Rev. 217, 224 (2010) (discussing dangers of texting while dr

Comm’n, ¶ 13 (2005); Twin City Fire Ins.

Comm’n, ¶ 19, (citation omitted).

Comm'n, ¶ 5 n.3, n.3 (App. 2004) (providing the attorney general an opportunity to address constitutional challenge to a statute), aff’d P.3d 786 (2005).

Comm'n, -13, ¶ 8, -14 (App. 2004) (explaining and contrasting legal and medical causation), aff'd ¶ 23

Comm’n, -14 (App. 2004), aff’d, P.3d 786 (2005).

Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 67, 70-71 ¶¶ 10-17, -90 (2005) (recounting history).

Comm’n, ¶ 19 , DeSchaaf v. Indus.

Comm’n, , 12 n. 3, ¶ 5, , 213 n. 3 (App.2004), aff'd

Comm’n, ¶ 25 , (declaring unconstitutional, under the first paragraph of Article 18, section 8, statutes that limited recovery when claimants had tested positive for or had consumed alcohol or drugs near time of accidents); Naslund, 210 Ariz. at 263, ¶ 1 , 110 P.3d at 364 (declaring unconstitutio

Comm’n, quoting Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, § 8 (alteration in Grammatico).