Industrial Commission hearing in Arizona

12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Pauley v. Industrial Commissiongreen arizctapp · 1969 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1975–1976 2 sentences 1976A.R.S. § 23-941 (F) provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this section and rules or procedure established by the commission, the hearing officer is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure and may conduct the hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice.” In Pauley v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 315, 317 , 458 P.2d 519, 521 (1969) it was held that: “A party to an Industrial Commission hearing not only has the right to cross-examine the witnesses, but also has the right to present evidence of his own. 1976A.R.S. § 23-941 (F) provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this section and rules or procedure established by the commission, the hearing officer is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure and may conduct the hearing in any manner that will achieve substantial justice.” In Pauley v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 315, 317 , 458 P.2d 519, 521 (1969) it was held that: “A party to an Industrial Commission hearing not only has the right to cross-examine the witnesses, but also has the right to present evidence of his own.	1	2
Horan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizonagreen arizctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Comm’n, 167 Ariz. 322, 326 (App. 1991); see also Rosovich v. Indus. 2024Comm’n, 167 Ariz. 322, 326 (App. 1991); see also Rosovich v. Indus.	1	1
Gila Valley Block Co. v. Industrial Commissiongreen arizctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See 120 Ariz. at 264 , 585 P.2d at 572 . 1994See 120 Ariz. at 264 , 585 P.2d at 572 .	1	1
Rosovich v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen ariz · 1982 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., Rosovich v. Industrial Comm’n, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982); Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 (1975). 1991See, e.g., Rosovich v. Industrial Comm’n, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982); Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 (1975).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Gordon v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1991See, e.g., Rosovich v. Industrial Comm’n, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982); Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 (1975). 1991See, e.g., Rosovich v. Industrial Comm’n, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982); Gordon v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App. 457 , 533 P.2d 1194 (1975).	1	1991–1991
MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission green ariz · 1975 2 sentences 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975). 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975).	1	1985–1985
Garcia v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona green arizctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1985Relying on Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 141 Ariz. 184 , 685 P.2d 1336 (App.1984) respondents argue that the carrier was not required to serve on counsel a notice of claim status in order to give him notice under the statute. 1985Relying on Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 141 Ariz. 184 , 685 P.2d 1336 (App.1984) respondents argue that the carrier was not required to serve on counsel a notice of claim status in order to give him notice under the statute.	1	1985–1985
Sill v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1970 2 sentences 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975). 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975).	1	1985–1985
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975). 1985R4-13-158, 2 an Industrial Commission rule that requires service of all notices on a party’s authorized representative, and Sill v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 6 , 467 P.2d 81 (1970), Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 129 Ariz. 342 , 631 P.2d 124 (App.1981), and MRF Construction Company v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 466 , 532 P.2d 528 (1975).	1	1985–1985
Hurley v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1984As the Court of Appeals noted, “we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the basis for the initial denial by the Industrial Commission was in error.” Hurley, supra, at 314 , 681 P.2d at 466 .	1	1984–1984
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1980Evertsen v. Industrial Commission, 117 Ariz. 378 , 573 P.2d 69 (App.1977), discusses the impartial character which the Industrial Commission and its hearing officers must maintain in order to comport with the requirements of due process to the end that all parties appearing before the Commission will receive a fair and impartial hearing. 1980Evertsen v. Industrial Commission, 117 Ariz. 378 , 573 P.2d 69 (App.1977), discusses the impartial character which the Industrial Commission and its hearing officers must maintain in order to comport with the requirements of due process to the end that all parties appearing before the Commission will receive a fair and impartial hearing.	1	1980–1980
Keeler v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1980Keeler v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 16 , 592 P.2d 1282 (App.1979). 1980Keeler v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ariz. 16 , 592 P.2d 1282 (App.1979).	1	1980–1980
McKay v. Industrial Commission green ariz · 1968 2 sentences 1978McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, 103 Ariz. 191 , 438 P.2d 757 (1968). 1 The scope of the Industrial Commission’s inquiry into annulments is, however, limited under our cases. 1978McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, 103 Ariz. 191 , 438 P.2d 757 (1968). 1 The scope of the Industrial Commission’s inquiry into annulments is, however, limited under our cases.	1	1978–1978
Chavez v. Industrial Commission green ariz · 1974 2 sentences 1976Our decision that the award must be set aside, and the case remanded to the In dustrial Commission, makes it unnecessary for us to consider the applicability of Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362 , 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), and Chaves v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364 , 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) to the facts of this case. 1976Our decision that the award must be set aside, and the case remanded to the In dustrial Commission, makes it unnecessary for us to consider the applicability of Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362 , 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), and Chaves v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364 , 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) to the facts of this case.	1	1976–1976
Janis v. Industrial Commission green ariz · 1974 2 sentences 1976Our decision that the award must be set aside, and the case remanded to the In dustrial Commission, makes it unnecessary for us to consider the applicability of Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362 , 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), and Chaves v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364 , 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) to the facts of this case. 1976Our decision that the award must be set aside, and the case remanded to the In dustrial Commission, makes it unnecessary for us to consider the applicability of Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362 , 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), and Chaves v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364 , 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) to the facts of this case.	1	1976–1976
Garcia v. Industrial Commission green arizctapp · 1973 2 sentences 1976In the second Garcia case it is stated: “The prior opinion merely points out that the Commission’s file reflects a possibility of such stenographic or clerical error and states that the ‘petitioner should have been afforded at least the opportunity of establishing his record.’ This opportunity has been afforded to him with negative results.” 20 Ariz.App. at 146 , 510 P.2d at 1051 . 1976In the second Garcia case it is stated: “The prior opinion merely points out that the Commission’s file reflects a possibility of such stenographic or clerical error and states that the ‘petitioner should have been afforded at least the opportunity of establishing his record.’ This opportunity has been afforded to him with negative results.” 20 Ariz.App. at 146 , 510 P.2d at 1051 .	1	1976–1976
Vidal v. Industrial Commission neutral arizctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1975Bedwell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 8 Ariz.App. 244 , 445 P.2d 446 ; that notwithstanding the de novo proceedings, the lower tribunal, i. e., The Industrial Commission is bound by the ‘law of the case’ as previously determined by the Appellate Court. 1975Bedwell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 8 Ariz.App. 244 , 445 P.2d 446 ; that notwithstanding the de novo proceedings, the lower tribunal, i. e., The Industrial Commission is bound by the ‘law of the case’ as previously determined by the Appellate Court.	1	1975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-941 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NC 24 (1931–2018) OH 17 (1929–2021) IL 15 (1919–2014) AZ 12 (1975–2024) ID 4 (1975–1990) CO 3 (1977–2006) OK 3 (1931–1959) SC 3 (1941–2013) GA 2 (1935–1936)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check