Court Opinion

ID: 3285396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:00:10.15581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:16.898939
License: Public Domain

I concur.
In concurring I wish to express my opinion that any break in the rule of finality of decision is regrettable. Courts presided over by trained judges are very strictly limited in their power of opening cases after judgment. The value of knowing that a certain judgment is final is greater in most cases than the possibility of advantageous change. The temptation to present perjured or colored testimony to meet a condition revealed in the first trial is often too great to be successfully resisted. These are good reasons, and there are others, supporting the doctrine of finality of decision as applied to courts. They certainly apply with equal force to judgments rendered by commissions untrained in our system of jurisprudence.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on October 21, 1932, and an application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on November 21, 1932. *Page 230