A. Any person in interest dissatisfied with an order of the commission may within thirty days commence an action in the superior court of the county where the property, plant or place of employment affected by the order is located against the commission as defendant to set aside, vacate or amend the order, on the ground that the order is unreasonable or unlawful, and the superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction thereof. The commission shall be served with summons as in civil actions.
B. The answer of the commission shall be filed within twenty days after service of summons upon it. The commission shall file with the answer a certified transcript of its record in the matter, whereupon the action shall be at issue and shall be advanced for trial by the court upon application of either party to the earliest possible date.
C. No action or proceeding to set aside, amend or enjoin enforcement of an order of the commission shall be brought unless the petitioner has applied to the commission for a hearing thereon as provided by section 23-945 and in such petition has raised every issue in the action.
Notes of Decisions
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “A party may obtain review of an order by commencing an action in superior court pursuant to AR.S. § 23-946 (1995). Goodrich v. Indus.”
Indus. Comm'n of Arizona v. Parise, 478 P.2d 137 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 12× “In March, 1968, the plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-946, alleging his dissatisfaction with an order of the Commission on the ground that it was unreasonable and unlawful.”
Goodrich v. Indus. Comm'n, 463 P.2d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 9× “Section 23-946, this Court has an ultimate potential appellate jurisdiction over the issue and therefore a present power to issue writs of mandamus pursuant to Section 12-120.”
Evertsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. § 23-946 for the right of the Commission to appear in judicial proceedings concerning an “order” of the Commission.”
Indus. Comm'n v. Jordan, 448 P.2d 895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 5× “The Industrial Commission entered its order on 24 March, 1967, denying Jordan’s petition and ruling that the tips regulation is “declared valid and in full force and effect”.”
Climate Control, Inc. v. Hill, 349 P.2d 771 (Ariz. 1960).
· cites it 2× “If appellant’s constitutional objection is that a statute, even though valid on its face, can be so administered as to be arbitrary and capricious, then the simple answer is that the statute, A.R.S. § 23-946, affords a method for obtaining judicial review of that administrative…”
Indus. Comm'n v. Farm & Home Food Serv., Inc., 426 P.2d 808 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “Farm and Home, complying with A.R.S. § 23-946, filed in Superior Court a complaint which alleged that the Commission-order was unreasonable and unlawful and asked that it be vacated.”
Raban v. Indus. Comm'n, 541 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“§ 23-945 and § 23-946 by filing with The Industrial Commission, on April 18, 1974, a request labeled Petition on Validity of Order on Request for Stay of Proceedings.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 519 P.2d 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-946(A). The issue as to the credit of future sums has never been presented to *367 and acted upon by the Industrial Commission.”
Buehler v. Retzer Ex Rel. Indus. Com'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “A party may obtain review of an order by commencing an action in superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-946 (1995). Goodrich v. Indus.”
Indus. Comm'n v. Harbor Ins., 420 P.2d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
“Subsection A of Section 23-946 A.R.S. provides that: “Any person in interest dissatisfied .”
Greer v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 56 P.3d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d 1102, 1106 (1941); A.R.S. §§ 23-946. Travelers contends that, were the superior court to apportion the percentage of *482 benefits paid after the malpractice that was attributable to the malpractice from the percentage that were attributable to the original injury, the court…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-946(A) — 3 cases
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“A party may obtain review of an order by commencing an action in superior court pursuant to AR.S. § 23-946 (1995). Goodrich v. Indus.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 519 P.2d 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
“A.R.S. § 23-946(A). The issue as to the credit of future sums has never been presented to *367 and acted upon by the Industrial Commission.”
Buehler v. Retzer Ex Rel. Indus. Com'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“A party may obtain review of an order by commencing an action in superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-946 (1995). Goodrich v. Indus.”
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.