McKenna v. State Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court May 31, 1923 No. S. F. No. 10705Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was injured by the respondent board's order.

Issues

Whether the respondent board lacked jurisdiction due to the matter falling under federal admiralty jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of certiorari despite the board's finding against him on the merits.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Not having shown any injury by the order complained of petitioner is not entitled to a writ.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.”

THE COURT. The petitioner, Matthew McKenna, was' denied relief by the respondents under the workmen’s compensation law (Stats. 1917, p. 831) because they found that petitioner had suffered no injury as a result of the alleged accident, and that the injury he complained of resulted from a previous accident.

The petitioner claims that the respondent board was without jurisdiction because the accident complained of [234]comes within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. If this is true, the petitioner is not injured hy the fact that the respondent board found against him. If they have jurisdiction he is concluded by their finding. Not having shown any injury by the order complained of petitioner is not entitled to a writ.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

McKenna v. State Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief