Legal Opinion

Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1988No. CV-87-0262-PRPublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLOHAN, Justice.

Claimant, Peter Finnegan, petitions this court to review a memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a denial of workman’s compensation benefits by the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA). Finnegan v. Industrial Commission, 1 CA-IC 3564 (filed May 28, 1987). The only issue we must determine is whether claimant’s injury arose in the course of his employment. Since we find that it did, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and set aside the award of the Industrial Commission.

Claimant, a garage mechanic, had been employed at Mike’s Auto Parts & Repair…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Crilly v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Royall v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Goodyear Aircraft Corporation v. GilbertArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Nemeth v. Michigan Building ComponentsMichigan Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Keovorabouth v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  2. Delgado v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  3. Pf Chang's v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  4. Noble v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  5. Samaritan Health Services v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991

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

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

Powered by the Exa API