Cardoza v. Pillsbury
Joseph Cardoza v. A.J. Pillsbury, Constituting the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
The application for a review by this court of the proceedings of the Industrial Accident Commission of the state of California states no ground upon which this court is authorized to entertain the same. The grounds stated, — namely, that the findings of the commission are not sustained by the evidence, and that the applicant has discovered new evidence material to him, are grounds upon which the commission itself may grant a rehearing (Workmen's Compensation Act, sec. 82), but the courts are restricted to the grounds stated in section 84 of said act.
The application for a writ is denied for these reasons. *Page 107
Cited by
- Clendaniel v. Industrial Accident Commission S. F. 16474 · 1941-03-20
- G. L. Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. S. F. No. 9624. · 1921-08-02