Criminal Law · MBE-tested
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents
67 Cal. App. 590·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1924·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. 4754.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
June 4, 1924.]
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.
Workmen’s Compensation Act — Certiorari — Evidence—Insufficient Application—Denial of Writ.—Where the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission makes no attempt to comply with the rule of the supreme court which provides that the application must fairly state “all the material evidence” relating to the point as to which the want of evidence is claimed to exist, and does not reply to the Commission’s answer, which purports to supply much of the evidence omitted by the petitioner, the appellate court is justified in assuming that all the material evidence bearing upon the point raised by the petitioner is set forth in the Commission’s answer; and where the evidence so set forth is sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the Commission, the writ will be denied.
(1) 11 C. J., p. 208, see. 374.
1. See 4 Cal. Jur. 1094.
PROCEEDING- in Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. Writ denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
William Guthrie for Petitioner.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
In its application for the writ of certiorari petitioner has made no attempt to comply with that rule of the supreme court which provides that the application must fairly state “all material evidence” relating to the point as to which the want of evidence is claimed to exist. (Rule XXVI, subd. 4.) Nor has petitioner seen fit to file any reply to the Commission’s answer, though the time therefor has elapsed, and the answer purports to supply much of the evidence which was omitted by petitioner in its application. We therefore feel justified in assuming that all of the material evidence bearing upon the point raised by petitioner is set forth in the Commission’s answer. The evidence so set forth in the answer unquestionably is sufficient to warrant the conclusion of the Commission, and the writ, therefore, is denied.