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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blasdell v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2019Comm’n, 65 Ariz. 373, 376 (1947). ¶12 In determining whether the first condition of the statutory employer relationship exists, courts have applied the traditional right to control test that is used to determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. 1986See Blasdell v. Industrial Commission, 65 Ariz. 373 , 181 P.2d 620 (1947). | 2 | 2 |
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1992Home Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 123 Ariz. 348, 350 , 599 P.2d 801, 803 (1979). 1992Home Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 123 Ariz. 348, 350 , 599 P.2d 801, 803 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ.
green
2 sentences2019Hunt, 148 Ariz. at 106 . 2015Id. at 106 , 713 P.2d at 307 . | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2001In addition, when a disputed issue requires consideration of multiple factors, such as the factors for determining a claimant’s loss of earning capacity, Wammack, or the claimant’s status as an employee or independent contractor under the right-to-control test, see Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission, 173 Ariz. 309 , 842 P.2d 1322 (App.1992), the findings must specifically address each of those factors, the relevant evidence presented on them, and how they affect the disposition of the disputed issue. 2001In addition, when a disputed issue requires consideration of multiple factors, such as the factors for determining a claimant’s loss of earning capacity, Wammack, or the claimant’s status as an employee or independent contractor under the right-to-control test, see Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission, 173 Ariz. 309 , 842 P.2d 1322 (App.1992), the findings must specifically address each of those factors, the relevant evidence presented on them, and how they affect the disposition of the disputed issue. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Rustler Lodge v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1986In Rustler Lodge v. Industrial Commission, 562 P.2d 227 (Utah 1977), the same right to control test, that the claimant now wishes us to abandon, was applied by the Utah court. 1986In Rustler Lodge v. Industrial Commission, 562 P.2d 227 (Utah 1977), the same right to control test, that the claimant now wishes us to abandon, was applied by the Utah court. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pinter Construction Co. v. Frisby
green
2 sentences1986More damaging to the claimant’s argument, however, is that in Pinter Construction Co. v. Frisby, 678 P.2d 305 (Utah 1984), the Utah Supreme Court cites with approval Arizona caselaw on the definition of statutory employee. 1986More damaging to the claimant's argument, however, is that in Pinter Construction Co. v. Frisby, 678 P.2d 305 (Utah 1984), the Utah Supreme Court cites with approval Arizona caselaw on the definition of statutory employee. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.