Hogeberg

Hogeberg v. Industrial Accident Commission

Good Law
1927 Cal. LEXIS 454·201 Cal. 169·256 P. 413
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 29, 1927Docket No. S.F. 12006.California2,227 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Curtis, J.

The facts upon which this proceeding is based are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Tyler, Presiding Justice of the district court of appeal, first appellate district, division one. We adopt that opinion in part as follows:

While the Commission granted a full hearing upon the petition filed June 30, 1924, and heard and received evidence upon its merits on behalf of all the parties thereto, it is apparent from the record before us that the order of August 12, 1924, and the order of November 24, 1924, denying a rehearing of the same, were not based upon the evidence adduced at said hearing, but were made upon the belief and finding on the part of the Commission that it had previously decided the issues then before it adversely to the applicant. This is made apparent beyond any question by reference to said orders. The order of August 12, 1924, after certain recitals, contains the following as the sole finding of facts: “The petition for additional relief filed herein on the 30th day of June, 1924, and the evidence introduced in support thereof, involved matters which have been heretofore decided adversely to the applicant, and which, now have become res adjudicada, and this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.