Legal Opinion
Pacific American Fisheries v. Hoof
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 2, 1923No. 3992PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRudkin, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). In support of the appeal it is claimed: First, that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of negligence. Second, that the negligence, if any, was the negligence of a fellow servant. Third, that the court below was without jurisdiction because of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the state (Laws 1911, p. 345) ; and, fourth, that *308if the appellee is entitled to recover at all, his recovery should be limited to wages, maintenance, and cure.
In cases of this kind the rule is well settled that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- The OsceolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. RohdeSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Atlantic Transport Co. of W. Va. v. ImbrovekSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Grower, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Emmett E. Page v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
- Johnson v. Griffiths S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Roberts v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
- The Sea LarkDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.