Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rattray v. Scudder

California Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1946No. L. A. 19512Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent. The majority opinion is based upon the premise that: “In determining this appeal it is not necessary to discuss the scope of review by the trial court of the commissioner’s proceedings (see Dare v. Medical Examiners, 21 Cal.2d 790 [136 P.2d 304]; Sipper v. Urban, 22 Cal.2d 138, 140 [137 P.2d 425]), for even if the record of these proceedings is read as if the evidence before the commissioner had been taken by the trial court itself, the trial court’s decision finds no support in the evidence.”

The italicized statement is not borne out by the record, and this error in premise has…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Laisne v. California State Board of OptometryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Dare v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Estate of RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944

15 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