McKenna v. State Industrial Accident Commission
MATTHEW McKENNA v. THE STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
- Area
- civil
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 COURT.
The petitioner, Matthew McKenna, was' denied relief by the respondents under the workmen’s compensation law (Stats. 1917, p. 831) because they found that petitioner had suffered no injury as a result of the alleged accident, and that the injury he complained of resulted from a previous accident.
The petitioner claims that the respondent board was without jurisdiction because the accident complained of *234comes within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. If this is true, the petitioner is not injured hy the fact that the respondent board found against him. If they have jurisdiction he is concluded by their finding. Not having shown any injury by the order complained of petitioner is not entitled to a writ.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.