Cardoza v. Pillsbury

California Supreme Court

Cardoza v. Pillsbury

169 Cal. 106

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1915

DocketS. F. No. 7262

StatusPublished

This text of 169 Cal. 106 (Cardoza v. Pillsbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cardoza v. Pillsbury, 169 Cal. 106 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Cal. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardoza-v-pillsbury-cal-1915.