Industrial Commission v. Hunt

Arizona Supreme Court

Industrial Commission v. Hunt

111 P.2d 67, 57 Ariz. 76, 1941 Ariz. LEXIS 164

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1941

DocketCivil No. 4370.

StatusPublished

This text of 111 P.2d 67 (Industrial Commission v. Hunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Industrial Commission v. Hunt, 111 P.2d 67, 57 Ariz. 76, 1941 Ariz. LEXIS 164 (Ark. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

The question involved in this case and in McGinness v. Hunt,ante, p. 70, 111 P.2d 65, is identical, that is, as to whether employees of the Industrial Commission whose employment and compensation have once been approved by the governor of the state are entitled to be paid their salaries, or must the commission submit such employment and *Page 77 salaries to each incoming governor and secure his approval before they may be paid their salaries.

The only difference in the cases is that this one is prosecuted by the Industrial Commission in behalf of all its employees. The attorney general and attorneys for the commission have stipulated that the decision in the McGinness case should control this case.

The alternative writ is made peremptory as to all employees of the commission except McGinness, who secured judgment for the payment of his salary in his own case, supra.

LOCKWOOD, C.J., and McALISTER and ROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The question involved in this case and in McGinness v. Hunt,ante, p. 70, 111 P.2d 65, is identical, that is, as to whether employees of the Industrial Commission whose employment and compensation have once been approved by the governor of the state are entitled to be paid their salaries, or must the commission submit such employment and *Page 77 salaries to each incoming governor and secure his approval before they may be paid their salaries.

The only difference in the cases is that this one is prosecuted by the Industrial Commission in behalf of all its employees. The attorney general and attorneys for the commission have stipulated that the decision in the McGinness case should control this case.

The alternative writ is made peremptory as to all employees of the commission except McGinness, who secured judgment for the payment of his salary in his own case, supra.

LOCKWOOD, C.J., and McALISTER and ROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 P.2d 67, 57 Ariz. 76, 1941 Ariz. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-commission-v-hunt-ariz-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack