Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ratley v. Industrial Commission, 248 P.2d 997.

50 citing documents.

Boyd v. Duraserv Corp dba/liberty Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Boyd v. Duraserv Corp dba/liberty Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Similarly, the Supreme Court set aside an award when the ALJ arbitrarily rejected uncontradicted testimony that was corroborated by a disinterested witness.
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Comm’n, -50 , Hunter v. Indus.
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Comm’n, -50 , (“[T]he trier of the facts is the judge of the witness’ credibility and is not required to accept the uncontradieted evidence of an interested party, but there are exceptions.
Hunter v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hunter v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Arthur G. McKee & Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Arthur G. McKee & Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
commission’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence.” , In this instance, there is some risk involved due merely to the type of surgerj recommended.
Gordon v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gordon v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ballesteros v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ballesteros v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Workmen’s Compensation § 547(9)
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
Co., , , , In re Schade’s Estate, , , , England v. Valley Na
Baxter v. Industrial Commission 430 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Baxter v. Industrial Commission 430 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
The Supreme Court also said: “Since the Commission when sitting as trier of fact must apply the same fundamental principles of law and equity as a court or jury, it may not arbitrarily disregard the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the uncontradicted testimony.”
Van Emden v. Becker 431 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Van Emden v. Becker 431 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Mohave Farms, , In re Schade’s Estate
Eck v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Eck v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The commission’s findings must be sustained if the facts do reasonably support the inference drawn or the legal conclusion reached and every presumption is in favor of the action of the commission.” at 349
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
He stated that Russell said, that he was feeling pretty bad; that “ * * * he looked like he was kind of hurting,” “And he showed mé a bruise that he had in his left rib cage, right under the *145 breast of the heart, and he said he wasn’t feeling very good, that he might have to go see a doctor, and I told him I would if I was him.” , , we said: “In deciding whether there is substantial evidence to support the commission’s findings, we are guided by the rule that the trier of the facts is the ju
Graham v. Vegetable Oil Products Company 401 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Graham v. Vegetable Oil Products Company 401 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Knapp v. Arizona Highway Department, supra
Jones v. Industrial Commission 394 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1964
Jones v. Industrial Commission 394 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1964
in support of his contention that the trier of the facts may not arbitrarily reject the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon.
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc. 370 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1962
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc. 370 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1962
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Company 367 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1961
Buzard v. Griffin 358 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
Buzard v. Griffin 358 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
In re Gary’s Estate, , .
Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Industrial Commission 355 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1960
Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Industrial Commission 355 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1960
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 328 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1958
However, petitioners urge that the Commission as triers of fact may not arbitrarily disregard the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the uncontradicted testimony, , , and that while there are many conceivable explanations for decedent’s change of direction, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is compelled to accept the only reasonable explanation, viz., that decedent was returning to pick up Kinkaid.
McGill v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1957
McGill v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1957
Jeune v. Del E. Webb Const. Co. 265 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
Jeune v. Del E. Webb Const. Co. 265 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
Co., , ; Illinois Bankers’ Life Ass’n v. Theodore, , ; , .
Martin v. Industrial Commission 257 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1953
Martin v. Industrial Commission 257 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1953
v. De Johnson, , 286 P. 817 ; In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , ; , .