Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

56 Ariz. 352
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided December 9, 1940·No. Civil No. 4281·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

LOCKWOOD, J.

Petitioners herein have moved for a rehearing, urging that on appeals from an award of the Industrial Commission the jurisdiction of this court is limited to affirming or setting aside an award in toto, and that we may not, as in all other civil and even in most criminal appeals, modify the judgment rendered by the lower tribunal. This position is correct. While, of course, we do point out in effect, when an award is set aside, what the commission must do, [353] unless it wishes its subsequent award also be reversed, so that the rule is more of form than of practical value, nevertheless the legislature, in its wisdom, has . made this distinction, and we must observe it. Section 1452, Revised Code of 1928; King v. Alabam’s Freight Company, 40 Ariz. 363, 12 Pac. (2d) 294.

For this reason, our former opinion is modified by striking therefrom the last paragraph and substituting in place thereof the words, “The award of the commission is set aside.”

ROSS, C. J., and MoALISTER, J., concur.

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

Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 56 Ariz. 352 (Ark. 1940).

56 Ariz. 352 (Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hazelton v. Industrial Commission
530 P.2d 370 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)
Nye v. Industrial Commission
406 P.2d 884 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1965)
Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission
276 P.2d 534 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1954)
Magma Copper Co. v. Aldrete
216 P.2d 392 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1950)
Killebrew v. Industrial Commission
176 P.2d 925 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1947)