Legal Opinion

Dighton v. Martin

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 5, 1935No. Civ. 8725PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

Appellant in an action for personal injuries sustained January 21, 1931, recovered a judgment entered on May 14, 1932. At the time of the accident appellant was the employee of Real Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., respondent herein, performing duties within the scope of her employment. During the pendency of the action and before satisfaction of judgment, appellant’s employer, respondent herein, filed an application for a lien against the judgment, pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act, as amended in 1931 (Stats. 1931, p.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. County of San Bernardino v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Jacobsen v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc'y v. DoranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Ryan v. Oakland Gas, Light & Heat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Duprey v. ShaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Pelkey v. Elsea Realty & Investment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Dearing v. PerryIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Eckman v. Arnold Taxi Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. DaltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API