Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1934No. Docket No. L.A. 14259PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

By this proceeding in certiorari, it is sought to annul the award of the respondent commission, allowing Edward A. Wellendorf compensation for an industrial injury.

The controlling question is whether the claim is barred by section 11 (c) of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1931, p. 2285), which section reads as follows: “The payment of compensation, or any part thereof, or agreement therefor, shall have the effect of extending the period within which proceedings for its collection may be commenced, six months from the date of the agreement or last…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Fogarty v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Great Western Power Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Associated Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Consolidated Steel Corp. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Royal Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Royal Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accedent CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

2 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