Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentMolloy, Judge
(dissenting) :
Having little fault to find with the logic employed by my colleagues, and in turn using the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius to arrive at a result, I come to a diametrically opposed conclusion from that above expressed.
The crux of the problem, as I see it, is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Law of this state was intended to be a comprehensive act regulating the broad problem of compensation for injuries received by workmen in the course of employment. I believe that it was, for the reasons that I will hereafter delineate, and, if it was, then by providing…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- The State of Rhode Island v. the State of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Gulf, Etc., Ry.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Feitig v. ChalkleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
- City of Mesa v. KillingsworthArizona Supreme Court · 1964
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.