Dufour v. Seymour
280 P. 134, 100 Cal. App. 434, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 277
Opinion
THE COURT.
[1] The testimony in the above-entitled matter seems to present a substantial conflict upon the question of whether or not the petitioner was injured in the course of his employment; and in that state of the record the finding of the respondent commission is controlling. The application for the writ is, therefore, denied upon that ground. *Page 435
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dufour v. Seymour, 280 P. 134, 100 Cal. App. 434, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).
280 P. 134 (Dufour v. Seymour) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
National City Bank v. Parr
185 N.E. 904 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1933)
Lepori v. Hilson
293 P. 86 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Pan-American Bank v. Crawford
291 P. 220 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)