Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 22, 1976No. 1 CA-IC 1422PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NELSON,‘judge.

On this review of an Industrial Commission award, we are called upon to determine whether the employer in question was subject to the provisions of the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Act because she had three or more workers in her employ.

Charlotte Hughes (Hughes), the petitioner herein, was employed as a receptionist by Alice Nedelec d. b. a. Alice’s House of Real Estate (Alice’s). Hughes alleged that she sustained an industrial injury which resulted in the amputation of the right ring finger and other injuries to the right hand. At the time of the incident, Alice’s was…

2Cases cited10 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. Bonasera v. RoffeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  5. McClain v. ChurchArizona Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pinter Construction Co. v. FrisbyUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Hughes v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Pinter Construction Co. v. FrisbyUtah Supreme Court · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API