Hughes v. Industrial Commission
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- Industrial Commission v. MeddockArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- Scott v. RhyanArizona Supreme Court · 1954
- Faith Realty & Development Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1969
- McClain v. ChurchArizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Reed v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Anton v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
- Central Management Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- Nation v. WeinerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Sherman v. First American Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- 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.