Legal Opinion

Liptak v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1926No. Docket No. S.F. 11633PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

—A rehearing was granted herein in order that the court might give further consideration to the matters presented by respective counsel upon application therefor. Upon resubmission of the cause the court is satisfied with the correctness of its opinion heretofore filed herein and hereby adopts the same and reaffirms the order directed to be made therein. Said opinion reads as follows:

“The petitioner seeks to review an award made by the respondent Industrial Accident Commission for the loss of petitioner’s remaining eye. The only point involved in the proceeding is whether or not the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Branconnier's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Thompson v. KnappMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Brooks v. Peerless Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1920
  4. State v. GunnSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1920
  5. In Re J. & P. Coats (R. I.) Inc. for an OpinionSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1918

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Bartlett Hayward Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. United Dredging Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Pacific Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Bianco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Colonial Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945

14 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