A. There shall be an industrial commission of Arizona.
B. The commission shall be composed of five members appointed by the governor pursuant to section 38-211. Each member shall be appointed for a term of five years. Members' terms expire on the third Monday in January of the appropriate year. Not more than three members of the commission shall belong to the same political party. The chairman of the commission shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor. The members of the commission shall have been residents of the state for at least five years immediately preceding their original appointment.
C. Each commissioner shall receive a salary of fifty dollars per day for each day in which the commissioner prepares for or attends a commission meeting. To receive the salary provided in this subsection, each commissioner shall provide documentation to the director of the commission that explains what commission duties were completed for the day in which the commissioner is seeking a salary.
D. The governor may remove a member of the commission for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2023 · leading case:
Ahearn v. Bailey
Ahearn v. Bailey, 451 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1969).
· cites it 11× “Petitioner qualified and took office after his appointment was confirmed by the State Senate as provided by A.R.S. § 23-101, subsec. B. 1 At the time of petitioner’s appointment the Industrial Commission was composed of three (3) members, whose terms were six (6) years.”
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block, 942 P.2d 428 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 4× “); A.R.S. § 23-101(B) (The Governor shall appoint all five members of the Industrial Commission, who shall each serve for five years.”
Scowden v. Indus. Comm'n, 563 P.2d 336 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “162, § 35) provides that any powers or duties prescribed by law to the Commission may by resolution be delegated by the Commission, provided that "[T]he commission shall not delegate its power or duty to .”
Ohlmaier v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 776 P.2d 791 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 2× “18, § 8; A.R.S. §§ 23-101 to 1091 (1983). Administrative law judges were placed into this system to hear contested claims by workers, the employer or the commission itself.”
Indus. Comm'n v. Brewer, 290 P.3d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-101(B). . We stated a "vested right is actually assertable as a legal cause of action or defense or is so substantially relied upon that retroactive divestiture would be manifestly unjust.”
Kleindienst v. Jordan, 379 P.2d 463 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 4× “Since his appointment by the Governor was subject to confirmation by the Senate, A.R.S. § 23-101, subd. B, it can hardly be claimed that he was in a position to be pressured or prevailed upon by threats of reduction or promise of increase in salary since that body had the…”
Chavez v. Indus. Comm'n, 575 P.2d 340 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 23-101, formerly 1928 R.C. § 1391.”
Labor Force v. Indus. Comm'n, 911 P.2d 553 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“1939 [A.R.S. 23-101 et seq.] from whence the commission derives its powers limits the commission to act within its employer-employee relationship only and it cannot go beyond that, except as specifically provided____” Pressley v.”
Waesche v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-101 (emphasis added). The right to recover compensation 9 pursuant to the workers’ compensation scheme for “injuries sustained by an employee or 10 for the death of an employee is the exclusive remedy against the employer.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-101(B) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block, 942 P.2d 428 (Ariz. 1997).
“); A.R.S. § 23-101(B) (The Governor shall appoint all five members of the Industrial Commission, who shall each serve for five years.”
Scowden v. Indus. Comm'n, 563 P.2d 336 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“162, § 35) provides that any powers or duties prescribed by law to the Commission may by resolution be delegated by the Commission, provided that "[T]he commission shall not delegate its power or duty to .”
Indus. Comm'n v. Brewer, 290 P.3d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“A.R.S. § 23-101(B). . We stated a "vested right is actually assertable as a legal cause of action or defense or is so substantially relied upon that retroactive divestiture would be manifestly unjust.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.