A. F. Estabrook Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
California Supreme Court
PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Ira A. Campbell, McCutchen, Olney & Willard, and John F. Cassell, for Petitioners. Christopher M. Bradley, and Warren H. Pillsbury, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
In North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 1, [162 P. 93], we held that the Workmen's Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act, as originally enacted, did not authorize an award of compensation where injury to the employee had occurred beyond the boundaries of this state. The question decided was simply one of interpretation. It was assumed that the legislature had power to require employers to compensate "injured employees whose employment was created in this state, regardless of the place where the injury may have been sustained." The language of the statute, as read by the court,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Plymouth Coal Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. v. BlaggSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Southern Railway Co. v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Engel v. O'MALLEYSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Jackson Vinegar Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Rubio v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- People v. HolfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- County of Imperial v. McDougalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.