Legal Opinion

Ruth v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 1, 1971No. 1 CA-IC 340PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEVENS, Presiding Judge.

The single question involved is whether the State Compensation Fund, the insurer of the several employers involved in connection with this matter, had the legal obligation to share in the cost of the recovery which the injured employees effected in their actions against the third-party tort-feasors. The recovery in each instance was in excess of the sums of money theretofore paid to and on behalf of the injured workmen.

In each of the eight consolidated cases The Industrial Commission of Arizona is the respondent and as indicated above the State Compensation Fund is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Russell v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Automatic Registering MacHine Co. v. Pima CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Moseley v. Lily Ice Cream Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Employment Security Commission of Arizona v. FishArizona Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Hornback v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1970

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ruth v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Hobson v. Mid-Century InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  3. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1974
  5. Hendry v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API