Legal Opinion

Fogarty v. Department of Industrial Relations

California Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1928No. Docket No. S.F. 12793PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The petition of the respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a rehearing in this cause was granted solely for the purpose of elaborating upon that portion of our opinion (269 Pac. 641) wherein it is determined that the - application of the dependents of Harlan Fogarty for adjustment of claim was timely filed. In the petition for rehearing it is urged that we overlooked the “vital feature” in our treatment of this phase of the case, viz., that “there was no valid subsisting claim to adjust.” With this assertion of petitioner we cannot agree. In the interest of clarity we will…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. G. L. Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Knock v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Singlaub v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Industrial Commission v. HavensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1957
  3. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Buckley v. RocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

16 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