Legal Opinion
Flamingo Motor Inn v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided August 17, 1982No. 1 CA-IC 2580PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CONTRERAS, Judge.
The sole issue is whether evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that respondent Tighe was an “employee” within the meaning of our Workmen’s Compensation statutes, of petitioner Flamingo Motor Inn (Flamingo) at the time he was injured. We find that it does, and affirm the award.
BACKGROUND
During 1979 and 1980, respondent Tighe had been hired to work on a part-time, as-needed basis at the motel and restaurant operated by petitioner Flamingo.1 He had performed maintenance work, such as cleaning, painting, moving furniture, moving equipment, and scrubbing…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Carnes v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1952
- J. P. O. Sandwich Shop, Inc. v. PapadopoulosIndiana Court of Appeals · 1938
- S. H. Kress & Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Colosimo v. GiacomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Central Management Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. ApostolouSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- Courchene v. Delaney Distributors, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.