Legal Opinion

Fishering v. Pillsbury

California Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1916No. S. F. No. 7587. In BankPublishedCited by 26 opinions

APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari to review an order_°f the Industrial Accident Commission denying an application for compensation. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

A writ of review was issued for the purpose of bringing before this court the proceedings of the Industrial Accident Commission upon the application of one F. E. Fishering for compensation. The commission denied the application, one of the commissioners dissenting.

The facts were as follows: Mr. Fishering was employed in the establishment of Daly Brothers, dealers, among other things, in toys. One day a fellow-employee took a “trick” camera into the petitioner’s office, pointed it at him, told him to “look pleasant,” and before he could protect himself, touched a button, which caused a spring…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Coronado Beach Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Crilly v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. In re LoperIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Kimbol v. Industrial Acc. CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

21 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