Dimieri v. Metafield, Inc.
Frank Dimieri, Defendant-Respondent v. Metafield, Inc., Prosecutor-Appellant.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari affirming an award in favor of a workman in a case of hernia resulting from strain. The opinion of Chief Justice Brogan for the Supreme Court applied the proper rules of law and we approve of his definition of “conclusive proof” as used in the pertinent section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, R. S.
34:15-12(x).
The judgment is affirmed.
Dissent
Colie, J.
(Dissenting.) I am unable to agree with the majority opinion approving the definition of “conclusive proof” as laid down by the Supreme Court, i. e., “that the fact finder, after hearing the evidence in support of the claim and contrasting and weighing it with the evidence produced to rebut it, is clearly of the view that the claim has been sustained by proof that is convincing in character.” The quoted definition reduces the degree of proof below the standard established by the legislature. However desirable the result may be in a particular case, desirability is no warrant for the judicial branch of the state government to usurp the function of the legislative branch. For a court to construe a statute in a manner that nullifies the clear legislative intent is legal error and establishes a precedent which opens wide *598 the door to unlimited encroachment on the legislative prerogative. Such is the effect of the court’s decision in this case. For the reason above stated, I am for reversal.
Mr. Justice Case has authorized me to say that he acquiesces in this opinion.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Bodine, Donges, Hei-iee, Poetee, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeett, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 11.
For reversal — Case, Colie, JJ.
2.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.