Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Industrial Commission

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1976No. 12804-PRPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAYS, Justice.

We took jurisdiction in this case by granting a Petition for Review. The opinion of the Court of Appeals in Hughes v. Industrial Commission, 27 Ariz.App. 152, 551 P.2d 962 (1976), is vacated.

The sole question is whether a real estate salesman is an employee of a real estate broker for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-901, et seq.

The respondent employer, Alice Nedelec, was a real estate broker who employed the petitioner, Charlotte Hughes, as a receptionist, and also employed two or more real estate salesmen. * The respondent Nedelec carried no…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. MeddockArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Scott v. RhyanArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Faith Realty & Development Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1969
  4. McClain v. ChurchArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Reed v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Anton v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  2. Central Management Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
  3. Nation v. WeinerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  4. Sherman v. First American Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  5. In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010

10 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