Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sneed v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZ.green2 sentences1996The applicable statute is Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 23-1061(H) (1995) which provides in pertinent part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition____ In Sneed v. Industrial Comm’n, 124 Ariz. 357 , 604 P.2d 621 (1980), our supreme court set forth a two prong test to determine whether a claimant had satisfied the requirements of t 1996The applicable statute is Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 23-1061(H) (1995) which provides in pertinent part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition____ In Sneed v. Industrial Comm’n, 124 Ariz. 357 , 604 P.2d 621 (1980), our supreme court set forth a two prong test to determine whether a claimant had satisfied the requirements of t | 1 | 2 |
Malinski v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2017See Malinski, 103 Ariz. at 216 . | 1 | 1 |
Bedwell v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1971An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition * * The test for appellate review of an Industrial Commission award was set out by the Arizona Supreme Court in Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443, 444 , 454 P.2d 985, 986 (1969): “[I]t must appear that the evidence was such that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission cannot be sustained because there is no 1971An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition * * The test for appellate review of an Industrial Commission award was set out by the Arizona Supreme Court in Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443, 444 , 454 P.2d 985, 986 (1969): “[I]t must appear that the evidence was such that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission cannot be sustained because there is no | 1 | 1 |
Flannery v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1966In its petition for review, the respondent Industrial Commission propounds several questions with regard to the effect of the rule enunciated tentatively in Flannery v. Industrial Commission, infra, and adopted in the opinion in this case, Fernandez v. Industrial Commission, supra: “If the Industrial Commission issues a second award and uses a 30 day clause in place of a 20 day clause, the Industrial Commission cannot thereby prevent a party from electing not to file a writ of certiorari and the party may, in lieu thereof, make a timely application for rehearing.” Flannery v. Industrial Commis 1966In its petition for review, the respondent Industrial Commission propounds several questions with regard to the effect of the rule enunciated tentatively in Flannery v. Industrial Commission, infra, and adopted in the opinion in this case, Fernandez v. Industrial Commission, supra: “If the Industrial Commission issues a second award and uses a 30 day clause in place of a 20 day clause, the Industrial Commission cannot thereby prevent a party from electing not to file a writ of certiorari and the party may, in lieu thereof, make a timely application for rehearing.” Flannery v. Industrial Commis | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1996Id. (citations omitted). 1996Id. (citations omitted). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Hopkins v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
green
2 sentences2005We conclude, therefore, that the 1999 amendment has not been applied retroactively to deprive Naslund of a vested property right. ¶ 14 Naslund further argues, however, that this court’s analysis and statements in Hopkins v. Industrial Commission, 176 Ariz. 173 , 859 P.2d 796 (App.1993) preclude application of the 1999 amendment to reduce her benefits from the 1994 injury. 2005We conclude, therefore, that the 1999 amendment has not been applied retroactively to deprive Naslund of a vested property right. ¶ 14 Naslund further argues, however, that this court’s analysis and statements in Hopkins v. Industrial Commission, 176 Ariz. 173 , 859 P.2d 796 (App.1993) preclude application of the 1999 amendment to reduce her benefits from the 1994 injury. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1994Id. at 19 , 695 P.2d at 268 . 1994Id. at 19 , 695 P.2d at 268 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 390-91 , 675 P.2d at 277-78 . 1988Id. at 390-91 , 675 P.2d at 277-78 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
New Pueblo Constructors v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1984The case of New Pueblo Constructors v. Industrial Commission, 115 Ariz. [236], 238 (Ct.App.), [sic] 564 P.2d 925 (1977) appears to be controlling under the facts of this case. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1983As correctly pointed out by the administrative law judge, the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Industrial Commission, 117 Ariz. 480 , 573 P.2d 880 (App.1977), touched upon this issue. 1983As correctly pointed out by the administrative law judge, the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Industrial Commission, 117 Ariz. 480 , 573 P.2d 880 (App.1977), touched upon this issue. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pascucci v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). 1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Garrote v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). 1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Crocker v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). 1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Bell v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). 1981Smitty’s Super Valu v. Industrial Com’n, supra; Crocker v. Industrial Commission, 124 Ariz. 566 , 606 P.2d 417 (1980); Bell v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. 536 , 617 P.2d 44 (App.1980); Pascucci v. Industrial Com’n., 126 Ariz. 442 , 616 P.2d 902 (App.1980); Garrote v. Industrial Commission, 121 Ariz. 223 , 589 P.2d 466 (App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Moffett v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1975Moffett v. Industrial Commission, 18 Ariz.App. 397 , 502 P.2d 546 (1972). 1975Moffett v. Industrial Commission, 18 Ariz.App. 397 , 502 P.2d 546 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.