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.
10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nowlin v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen2 sentences1992This court has examined four concepts to determine whether an injury arises out of employment: (1) the peculiar risk test, which requires the claimant to show that the source of the injury must be in its nature peculiar to the employment; (2) the increased risk test, which requires that the employment cause “an increased exposure to a risk which is qualitatively not peculiar to the employment;” (3) the actual risk test, in which it is immaterial that the risk is common to the public, if it is in fact a risk of the particular employment; and (4) the positional risk test, in which the “injury is 1992This court has examined four concepts to determine whether an injury arises out of employment: (1) the peculiar risk test, which requires the claimant to show that the source of the injury must be in its nature peculiar to the employment; (2) the increased risk test, which requires that the employment cause “an increased exposure to a risk which is qualitatively not peculiar to the employment;” (3) the actual risk test, in which it is immaterial that the risk is common to the public, if it is in fact a risk of the particular employment; and (4) the positional risk test, in which the “injury is | 3 | 3 |
Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2023See Samaritan, 170 Ariz. at 292 (“[T]he actual risk test applies to determine whether an injury arises out of employment where a work-related activity and a personal condition combine to cause an injury.”). 1992See Circle K Store #1131 v. Industrial Comm’n, 165 Ariz. 91 , 94 n. 2, 796 P.2d 893 , 896 n. 2 (1990); Samaritan Health Servs. v. Industrial Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 287, 291-292 , 823 P.2d 1295, 1299-1300 (App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Circle K Store 1131 v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1992See Circle K Store #1131 v. Industrial Comm’n, 165 Ariz. 91 , 94 n. 2, 796 P.2d 893 , 896 n. 2 (1990); Samaritan Health Servs. v. Industrial Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 287, 291-292 , 823 P.2d 1295, 1299-1300 (App.1991). 1992See Circle K Store #1131 v. Industrial Comm’n, 165 Ariz. 91 , 94 n. 2, 796 P.2d 893 , 896 n. 2 (1990); Samaritan Health Servs. v. Industrial Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 287, 291-292 , 823 P.2d 1295, 1299-1300 (App.1991). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hassongreen2 sentences2011When construing the meaning of a statute, “[w]e give clear and unambiguous statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning unless absurd consequences would result.” State v. Hasson, 217 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 11 , 177 P.3d 301, 304 (App.2008). 2011When construing the meaning of a statute, “[w]e give clear and unambiguous statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning unless absurd consequences would result.” State v. Hasson, 217 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 11 , 177 P.3d 301, 304 (App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen2 sentences1998Under Pearce, that standard is a variation of the increased risk test, requiring a “unique relationship to work.” In Pearce, we approved and adopted “[t]he opinion of the court of appeals as it relates to the law of successive injury in Arizona,” but vacated the remainder of the opinion. 147 Ariz. 582, 583 , 712 P.2d 429, 430 (1985)(emphasis added). 1998Under Pearce, that standard is a variation of the increased risk test, requiring a “unique relationship to work.” In Pearce, we approved and adopted “[t]he opinion of the court of appeals as it relates to the law of successive injury in Arizona,” but vacated the remainder of the opinion. 147 Ariz. 582, 583 , 712 P.2d 429, 430 (1985)(emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1990See Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 162 Ariz. 503, 504 , 784 P.2d 709, 710 (App.1990). 3 . 1990See Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 162 Ariz. 503, 504 , 784 P.2d 709, 710 (App.1990). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pf Chang's v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
green
1 sentence2023Comm’n, 216 Ariz. 344 , 347-48 ¶¶ 15-16 (App. 2007). ¶30 As to the nature of the risk, we place the risk contributed by employment into one of the four following categories: (1) The peculiar risk doctrine—the source of the injury is peculiar to the occupation; (2) The increased risk doctrine—the employment quantitatively increases the chance of injury; 10 (3) The actual risk doctrine—the employment subjects the employee to the risk of this injury; or (4) The positional risk doctrine—the injury would not have occurred but for the fact that the employment placed the employee in a position where | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Mh-2008-000867
green
1 sentence2015This independent duty imposed on the court is based on “considerations of the patient’s substantial interest, the increased risk of error when a patient does not have the opportunity to be heard, the ease of providing the patient with an alternative means of attending the hearing, and the important government interest in having the patient attend the hearing.” Id. ¶19 Although the record suggests that Appellant may have been unable to physically attend the hearing as a result of his medical condition and being restrained, the court made no inquiries into whether Appellant desired to attend the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lane v. Security Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2003E.g., Lane, 724 N.Y.S.2d 670 , 747 N.E.2d at 1271 . 2003E.g., Lane, 724 N.Y.S.2d 670 , 747 N.E.2d at 1271 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sacks v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1990Respondents argue that Arizona has clearly adopted the increased risk doctrine, citing McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, 71 Ariz. 244, 226 P.2d 147 (1950), and Sacks v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App. 83 , 474 P.2d 442 (1970). 1990Respondents argue that Arizona has clearly adopted the increased risk doctrine, citing McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, 71 Ariz. 244, 226 P.2d 147 (1950), and Sacks v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App. 83 , 474 P.2d 442 (1970). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks
green
2 sentences1990Respondents argue that Arizona has clearly adopted the increased risk doctrine, citing McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, 71 Ariz. 244, 226 P.2d 147 (1950), and Sacks v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App. 83 , 474 P.2d 442 (1970). 1990Respondents argue that Arizona has clearly adopted the increased risk doctrine, citing McCampbell v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, 71 Ariz. 244, 226 P.2d 147 (1950), and Sacks v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App. 83 , 474 P.2d 442 (1970). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.