Legal Opinion

Hancock v. Industrial Commission

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1957No. 6289PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WINDES, Justice.

Certiorari to test the validity of an award of the Arizona Industrial Commission. There is no material dispute in the evidence. The petitioner, Joseph E. Hancock, was employed- as a carpenter foreman by the Royden= Construction Company which was engaged in road construction work, including construction of a bridge near Polacca, Arizona, approximately 75 miles northwest of Holbrook, Arizona. Petitioner lived at Concho, approximately 42 miles southeast of Holbrook. Sometime prior to Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 1955, petitioner’s superior, the job superintendent, told him to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Butler v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Cochran v. Maassen Tool & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
  4. Cavness v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1952

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. McKay v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Anderson v. GobeaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
  3. Fisher Contracting Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  4. Gordon v. Puritan Chemical CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
  5. Rencehausen v. Western Greyhound LinesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968

4 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