Legal Opinion
Hogeberg v. Industrial Accident Commission
California Supreme Court
Decided April 29, 1927No. Docket No. S.F. 12006PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
The facts upon which this proceeding is based are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Tyler, Presiding Justice of the district court of appeal, first appellate district, division one. We adopt that opinion in part as follows:
“Certiorari to review a supplemental award made by the Industrial Accident Commission under which an injured employee was given a permanent disability compensation allowance for 88 weeks, amounting to the sum of $1,833.04.
“Petitioner New Amsterdam Casualty Company is the insurance carrier of its copetitioner Hogeberg. Respondent Nickolaus Meiers was employed by Hogeberg…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hughes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Swift v. McPhersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Reynolds v. LincolnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bartlett Hayward Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Robinson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Campanella v. CampanellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Financial Indemnity Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Lynch v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.