1 Ariz. App. 24 - Avenente v. Smouse’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 1990 · most notably 1 Ariz. App. 445 - Thiel v. Industrial Commission (1965), 3 Ariz. App. 290 - Edwards v. Industrial Commission (1966)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird · United States of America v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company · Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission · Simpkins v. State Banking Department · Kelsey v. Industrial Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is up to the Industrial Commission to provide the proper safeguards for the introduction of evidence, and receiving of testimony in its hearings. It is not up to the petitioner to find and bring to the hearing the witness for cross examination, it is up to the commission to do so if it intends to use such evidence upon which to base its decision. * * * ” Avenente v. Smouse, 1 Ariz.App. 24 at p. 26 , 398 P.2d 932 at p. 934 (1965).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“But the more liberal the practice in admitting testimony, the more imperative the obligation to preserve the essential rules of evidence by which rights are asserted or defended.... ... All parties must be fully appraised of the evidence submitted or to be considered, and must be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents, and to offer evidence in explanation or rebuttal. In no other way can a party maintain its rights or make its defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he Arizona Supreme Court has stated on more than one occasion that when the Commission makes an award, it is acting judicially and is therefore bound to follow the general principles of law. Bradley v. Industrial Commission, 51 Ariz. 291 , 76 P.2d 745 (1938), Barber v. Industrial Commission, 47 Ariz. 294 , 55 P.2d 654 (1936). The Arizona Supreme Court has also stated on more than one occasion, that the parties have the right of cross examination, Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ariz. 112 , 276 P.2d 534 (1945), Simpkins v. State Banking Department, 45 Ariz. 186 , 42 P.2d 47 (1935).” 398 P.2d 934 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.