Dorian v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Dorian v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

59 A.2d 9, 137 N.J.L. 185, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 300

DecidedMay 13, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.2d 9 (Dorian v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorian v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 59 A.2d 9, 137 N.J.L. 185, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 300 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are asked to review the evidence to determine whether appellant has proved disability flowing from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. R. S. 34:15-7, et seq. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in the affirmative. The question is purely factual; the issue turns upon the credit to be given to sharply conflicting medical testimony as to the origin and cause of appellant’s physical disability. It is fundamental that findings of fact made by the Supreme Court on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are conclusive on error. Mixon v. Kalman, 133 N. J. L. 113.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Donges, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We are asked to review the evidence to determine whether appellant has proved disability flowing from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. R. S. 34:15-7, et seq. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in the affirmative. The question is purely factual; the issue turns upon the credit to be given to sharply conflicting medical testimony as to the origin and cause of appellant’s physical disability. It is fundamental that findings of fact made by the Supreme Court on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are conclusive on error. Mixon v. Kalman, 133 N. J. L. 113.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Donges, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.2d 9, 137 N.J.L. 185, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorian-v-federal-shipbuilding-dry-dock-co-nj-1948.