Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-948 (2026)

Jurisdiction of actions concerning orders or petitions for writ of mandamus; right of appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No court of this state, except the superior court, the court of appeals and the supreme court on appeal shall have jurisdiction to review, vacate, set aside, reverse, revise, correct, amend or annul any order of the commission or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain or interfere with the commission in the performance of its duties, but a writ of mandamus may issue from the supreme court to the commission in proper cases, and an appeal may be taken from the superior court to the supreme court in all cases.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: Miceli v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miceli v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 8× “6, § 5, and authority to grant such relief is conferred by A.R.S. § 23-948. 1 Finding that the Commission abused its discretion in making the order in question and there being no remedy by appeal, we concluded that this was a “proper case” for issuance of the order sought by…”
Phelps v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 747 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. QUESTION PRESENTED We must determine whether the testimony of the treating physican establishes a compensable heart-related injury meeting the requirements of A.”
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Dir. of Ins., 422 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1966). · cites it 4× “Workmen's Compensation § 23-948 4. Transaction Privilege Tax § 42-1339 5.”
Carousel Snack Bar v. Indus. Comm'n, 749 P.2d 1364 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. ISSUE PRESENTED We address the following issue: 1.”
Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011). “) - Although the plain language of § 28-942(A) appears to impose a mandatory thirty-day time limit, in Shockey v. Industrial Commission, we considered an analogous statute, 2.”
Henry v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 754 P.2d 1342 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 4× “6 § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. QUESTION We need answer only one question on review and that is: Was the claim for Workers' Compensation benefits timely filed pursuant to A.”
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Thus, we cite to the current published version of the statute. . The legislature also has made a handful of other nonsubstantive changes to the statute since 1969.”
Pac. Fruit Express v. Indus. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 820 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 2× “VI, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. ISSUES PRESENTED The issues presented on this review are 1) Is the 1980 amendment to A.”
Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “Such an order can be challenged pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948 by a special action governed by Rule 1(b), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.”
Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Constitution article VI, section 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. ISSUES PRESENTED We address the following issues: 1) Whether the 1980 amendment to A.”
Tisdel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 751 P.2d 527 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “6 § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948. II. QUESTIONS We must answer only two questions on review: 1.”
Meva Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 485 P.2d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “Jonas urged that the 1970 actions by The Industrial Commission were “orders” and were therefore reviewable only pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948 by a review in the Superior Court and that the Commission actions above-referred to were not “awards” reviewable by this Court by…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-948(F) — 1 case
Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011). “) - Although the plain language of § 28-942(A) appears to impose a mandatory thirty-day time limit, in Shockey v. Industrial Commission, we considered an analogous statute, 2.”
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.