Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission, 565 P.2d 1300.

23 citing documents.

Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Comm’n, (law of the case applies “if an appellate court has ruled upon a legal question”) (emphasis added).
Baiker v. Kaplan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, (“[I]f an appellate court has ruled upon a legal question and remanded for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case.”).
Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, (App. 4 SPORE v. CAMPEAU, et al. Decision of the Court 1977).
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, (noting that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts).
Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Comm’n, , 441, , 1302 (App.1977)).
Teller v. Industrial Commission 879 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , 442, , 1303 (App.1977).
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , 441, , 1302 (App.1977).
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In Employer’s , we defined the “law of the case” doctrine as “a principle that if an appellate court has ruled upon a legal question and remanded for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case.”
Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima 656 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima 656 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Compare Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , (an erroneous judgment is conclusive between the parties) , (law of the case inapplicable if different evidence is provided at the second hearing).
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Comm’n
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
[Review Denied June 15, 1977] as follows: “The effect of setting aside an award of the Commission results in the Commission conducting hearing de novo wherein new evidence bearing on the issues of the case may be presented.
Emp. Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Emp. Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Petitioner Carrier, Valley Dodge, Inc., Petitioner Employer, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Charles R. Hazelton, Respondent Employee.