Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PELANDER, J.
¶ 1 In these two cases, consolidated for appeal, the trial courts ruled as a matter of law that A.R.S. § 23-1023(0 does not permit an order compelling a workers’ compensation lienholder to pay, from the amount it is paid on account of its statutorily prescribed lien, an equitable share of the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the claimant in a third-party tort action. The trial courts also ruled that, so construed, § 23-1023 does not unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on the superior courts’ equitable power. Because we agree with…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Hayes v. Continental InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- City of Mesa v. KillingsworthArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- McKay v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1968
- Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Quinn v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Moore v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. SiddleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Norgord v. State Ex Rel. BerningCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.