Criminal Law · MBE-tested
T. J. PETITT, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent
48 Cal. App. 472·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1920·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 3387.
Second Appellate District, Division. Two.
Two.July 10, 1920.]
T. J. PETITT, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent.
Workmen’s Compensation Act — Review of Order of Commission — Insufficiency of Petition — Noncompliance with Rule of Supreme Court. — A petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission, based upon a want of evidence sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the commission that petitioner’s disability terminated on a given date, will be denied, where no attempt is made to state “all the material evidence” relative to that point, as required by Rule XXVI, subdivision 4, of the supreme court.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission. Petition denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Archie D. Mitchell for Petitioner.
A. E. Graupner for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
— The petition, in substance and effect, is based upon a want of evidence sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the commission that petitioner’s disability terminated September 8, 1919. No attempt is made to state “all the material evidence” relative to this point. The petition, therefore, fails to comply with the rules promulgated by the supreme court (subd. 4, Rule XXVI, 183 Pac. viii).
Petition denied.
473