Legal Opinion
Smith v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided June 2, 1976No. 1 CA-IC 1309PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NELSON, Presiding Judge.
Our decision in Adams v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona (1 CA-IC 1296), 26 Ariz.App. 289, 547 P.2d 1089 (1976), filed this day, relating to Rule 13d, Rules of Procedure for Workmen’s Compensation Hearings Before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (Nov. 1, 1973), requires the award herein to be set aside.
Henry D. Smith, Sr., petitioner herein (Smith), injured his back on May 19, 1972 while working for the City of Tucson, respondent employer. The State Compensation Fund, respondent carrier (SCF), accepted the claim for workmen’s compensation benefits.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Midland-Ross Corporation v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1971
- Adams v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- Mahan v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1971
- Greer v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
- Matthews v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Smith v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1976
- Bader v. Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1990
- Adams v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.