Marney v. Industrial Insurance Department

167 P. 1085, 98 Wash. 483, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 958
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1917
DocketNo. 14098
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 167 P. 1085 (Marney v. Industrial Insurance Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marney v. Industrial Insurance Department, 167 P. 1085, 98 Wash. 483, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 958 (Wash. 1917).

Opinion

Morris, J.

In February, 1916, appellant was an employee of the Washington Water Power Company, of Spokane, and claims to have sustained an injury within the provisions of the industrial insurance act. He applied to the commission for relief. His claim was denied, and he then appealed to the superior court of Spokane county, where the claim was again denied, and this appeal follows.

We shall not attempt to review the facts. They have been twice passed upon and twice ruled against appellant. Whatever the facts may be, the law is the same. The conclusion of the commission must be sustained, unless the facts clearly preponderate against such conclusion. We agree with both the commission and the lower court that appellant’s case falls far short of showing him entitled to relief. The case as-a whole, with all its attendant and controlling circumstaiicésy [484]*484clearly preponderates against appellant. Section 6604-20, Rem. Code, provides that “in all court proceedings under or pursuant to this act the decision of the department shall be prima facie correct, and the burden of proof shall be upon the party attacking the same.” Appellant has not met the burden thus placed upon him, and if we were in doubt as to the preponderance of the facts, our decision, under this section, must necessarily go against appellant. We have, however, no doubt, but believe the commission adjudged the case correctly in the first instance.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., Holcomb, Main, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Purdy & Whitfield v. Department of Labor & Industries
120 P.2d 858 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
Bergagna v. Department of Labor & Industries
91 P.2d 551 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Langford v. Department of Labor & Industries
81 P.2d 277 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
In Re Larsen's Estate
71 P.2d 47 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
McKinnie v. Department of Labor & Industries
37 P.2d 218 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
Zoff v. Department of Labor & Industries
25 P.2d 972 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)
Frich v. Department of Labor & Industries
13 P.2d 67 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)
Boyer v. Department of Labor & Industries
295 P. 737 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Pavlinovich v. Department of Labor & Industries
290 P. 876 (Washington Supreme Court, 1930)
Clark v. Department of Labor & Industries
230 P. 133 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Baird v. Industrial Insurance Commission
211 P. 742 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)
McMullin v. Department of Labor & Industries
207 P. 956 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 P. 1085, 98 Wash. 483, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marney-v-industrial-insurance-department-wash-1917.