Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Ujack, 139 P. 465.

27 citing documents.

Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
-84, 139 P. 465, 466 (1914); Red Rover Copper Co. v. Indus.
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
-84 , 139 P. 465, 466 (1914); Red Rover Copper Co. v. Indus.
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
See, , 139 P. 465 (1914); Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 (1926); State ex rel.
Hacker v. Industrial Commission 758 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Hacker v. Industrial Commission 758 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
139 P. 465 (1914); see also, , 199 P. 390 (1921) (striking 1921 legislation requiring pre-injury election).
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1985
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1985
139 P. 465 (1914) this court held that portion of the statute unconstitutional because it conflicted with the portion of art. 18, § 8 which stated, “it shall be optional with said employee to settle for such compensation or retain the right to sue.” Reading the plain language, we reasoned that no meaningful election
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1984
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1984
199 P. 390 (1921); , 139 P. 465 (1914).
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. Magma Copper Company 425 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Williams v. Magma Copper Company 425 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
139 P. 465 (1914), it was held that the election provisions contained within the act, as between Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability, could be exercised by the employee after injury, despite certain language in the act seemingly designed to accomplish a contrary result, because to construe the act o
Jeune v. Industrial Commission 274 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1954
Jeune v. Industrial Commission 274 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1954
Respondents also contend that Arizona law on the matter before us was settled in their favor by the early cases of Twohy Bros. v. Rogers, 9 Cir., 293 F. 566 , , 139 P. 465 .
Oatman United Gold Mining Co. v. Pebley 250 P. 255 Ariz. 1926
Oatman United Gold Mining Co. v. Pebley 250 P. 255 Ariz. 1926
Alabam's Freight Co. v. Hunt 242 P. 658 Ariz. 1926
Alabam's Freight Co. v. Hunt 242 P. 658 Ariz. 1926
Industrial Commission v. Crisman 199 P. 390 Ariz. 1921
Industrial Commission v. Crisman 199 P. 390 Ariz. 1921
Quoting from his brief, he says: “The Constitution of the state inhibits the enactment of legislation requiring an employee to elect before injury the remedy he will pursue in the event of his injury in the course of his employment.” In support of this proposition, plaintiff cites section 8 of article 18 of the Constitution, and the decision of this court in the Ujack Case, , 139 Pac.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Mendez 166 P. 278 Ariz. 1917
Behringer v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 149 P. 1065 Ariz. 1915
Behringer v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 149 P. 1065 Ariz. 1915