Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951 (2026)

Writ of certiorari to review lawfulness of award, order or decision upon review; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Any party affected by an award by the commission or by a decision upon review under the provisions of section 23-943 or by an order under the provisions of section 23-237 may apply to the court of appeals for a writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of the award, order or decision upon review.

B. The writ of certiorari provided by subsection A of this section and by section 23-943 shall be made returnable within ten days and shall direct the commission to certify its record, proceedings and evidence to the court of appeals. The court of appeals may quash or dismiss the writ of certiorari upon the grounds of dismissal applicable to civil appeals. The review shall be limited to determining whether or not the commission acted without or in excess of its power and, if findings of fact were made, whether or not such findings of fact support the award, order or decision. If necessary, the court may review the evidence.

C. Each party to the proceedings before the commission may appear in the court of appeals.

D. The court of appeals shall enter judgment either affirming or setting aside the award, order or decision.

E. The rules of civil procedure relating to certiorari shall apply so far as applicable and not in conflict with this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 144 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 520 P.2d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 520 P.2d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 12× “In arriving at its conclusion that the intermediate average monthly wage award was res judicata and could not be attacked on the review of the later award, the Arizona Supreme Court in Talley, supra, stated: "By construction, A.R.S. § 23-951, subsec. A has been applied to…”

Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 14× “See A.R.S. § 23-951(D). In July 1975, claimant was injured in an industrially related automobile accident in which she suffered an injury to her right leg as well as other injuries.”

Perry v. Indus. Comm'n, 542 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 8× “In a timely manner a hearing was held and the Commission awarded Perry medical, surgical and hospital benefits, together with compensation benefits as provided by law from February 2, 1973, the date of the injury, until March 27, 1973, at which time the condition was deemed…”

Stainless Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 695 P.2d 261 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 23-951. The court of appeals set aside the award in a memorandum opinion.”

Evertsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “However, in 1968, the legislature amended subsection (C) of A.R.S. § 23-951 to provide: “Each party to the proceeding before the commission may appear in the court of appeals.”

Bearden v. Indus. Comm'n, 483 P.2d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 7× “Writs of certiorari directed to the review of the awards of The Industrial Commission of Arizona are authorized by A.R.S. § 23-951. This section has been amended in matters not material to this opinion.”

Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “Although the ALJ generally cited the occupational disease statute, he made none of the findings required under § 23-901.01(B) and (C).”

Ritland v. Arizona State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 140 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-951(A) (1995). By contrast, as noted above, supra ¶ 8, it is the Board that rendered the final reviewable agency decision in this case.”

Contreras v. Indus. Comm'n, 403 P.2d 535 (Ariz. 1965). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-951 the Commission’s order of March 11, 1963, stated that any party aggrieved by the order might, within thirty (30) days after the rendition of the order *223 “apply to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona for a Writ of Certiorari to review the…”

Glover v. Indus. Comm'n, 531 P.2d 563 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 12× “Although we agree with the logic and policy enunciated in the hearing officer's findings, nevertheless we reluctantly conclude that the award must be set aside.”

Talley v. Indus. Comm'n, 461 P.2d 83 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 4× “By construction, A.R.S. § 23-951, subsec. A has been applied to intermediate awards, orders and findings so that if a rehearing is not requested and a timely review sought in the courts, the award, order or finding is forever conclusive; see: Pedigo v.”

Prof'l Furniture Serv. v. Indus. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “” In applying that statute to the record presented in this review, we note that, although set forth in the same document, the decision and award relating to the 1979 claim involving the State Compensation Fund is completely severable from the decision relating to the 1974 claim.”

Show all 144 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951(A) — 23 cases

Ritland v. Arizona State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 140 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “A.R.S. § 23-951(A) (1995). By contrast, as noted above, supra ¶ 8, it is the Board that rendered the final reviewable agency decision in this case.”

Carbajal v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 219 P.3d 211 (Ariz. 2009).

Ayala v. Hill, 664 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

Fry's Food Stores v. Indus. Comm'n, 776 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1989).

Warren v. Indus. Comm'n, 39 P.3d 534 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951(B) — 18 cases

Anton v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 688 P.2d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Hackworth v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 275 P.3d 638 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Perry v. Indus. Comm'n, 542 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. 1975). “In a timely manner a hearing was held and the Commission awarded Perry medical, surgical and hospital benefits, together with compensation benefits as provided by law from February 2, 1973, the date of the injury, until March 27, 1973, at which time the condition was deemed…”

Meno's Constr./aig v. Reyes, 442 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

Walters v. Indus. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 250 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951(C) — 1 case

Evertsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “However, in 1968, the legislature amended subsection (C) of A.R.S. § 23-951 to provide: “Each party to the proceeding before the commission may appear in the court of appeals.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951(D) — 32 cases

Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “See A.R.S. § 23-951(D). In July 1975, claimant was injured in an industrially related automobile accident in which she suffered an injury to her right leg as well as other injuries.”

Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019). “Although the ALJ generally cited the occupational disease statute, he made none of the findings required under § 23-901.01(B) and (C).”

Prof'l Furniture Serv. v. Indus. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “” In applying that statute to the record presented in this review, we note that, although set forth in the same document, the decision and award relating to the 1979 claim involving the State Compensation Fund is completely severable from the decision relating to the 1974 claim.”

Marriott Corp. v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 708 P.2d 1307 (Ariz. 1985).

Ford v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 703 P.2d 453 (Ariz. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-951(E) — 1 case

Mansanares v. Metro auto/norguard (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

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.