Legal Opinion

New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 13954PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A rehearing was granted in this proceeding after decision by this court affirming the award of the Industrial Accident Commission in order to devote further consideration to the somewhat novel question presented herein, in view of the very earnest and able briefs and argument of counsel for both parties and of the several amici curiae, discussing pro and con the issues involved in this inquiry. The original applicant for an award before the Industrial Accident Commission was one Claude Eustace who, while of the age of thirty-four years, was within the numerous class known as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hillen v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Piper v. Oakland Motor Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1920
  4. Poirier Manufacturing Co. v. KittsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Sinnett v. J. R. Watkins CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Birmingham Post Co. v. SturgeonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Hann v. Times-Dispatch Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1936
  3. Brose v. Union-Tribune Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Hearst Publications, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1946
  5. Murray v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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