Legal Opinion

Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

California Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 1972No. S.F. 22869PublishedCited by 87 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TOBRINER, J.

Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board vacating a referee’s compensation award on the grounds that by reason of the so-called “going and coming rule” the injury to petitioner did not arise “out of and in the course of employment.” We believe that instead of the rigid and automatic “going and coming rule” posited by the board the cases indicate a more refined definition, specifying with more exactitude the circumstances under which workmen’s compensation covers death and injury in transit and those in which it does not. Applying…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Dimmig v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Kobe v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by87 opinions

  1. Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. General Insurance Co. of America v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. McCarty v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

82 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