NIELSEN v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION (1934)

The opinion herein is modified by striking therefrom the following in the next to the last paragraph thereof (29 P.(2d) 852, 854): ‘What was held in the Winthrop Case [213 Cal. 351, 2 P.(2d) 142] was that the probative value of the witness' opinion is lacking if in the course of its development he has not been made acquainted with all of the essential facts in evidence, whether or not they are to be believed, and which would have a bearing upon or would influence the conclusion of the witness. The conclusion followed that, if the witness' opinion was without probative value because not based on the facts in the record, it could not support a finding based thereon. This was the extent of the holding in the Winthrop Case, and, pursuant to the well-defined power of the court on review, is the utmost that was intended by the holding in that case,’ and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘What was held in the Winthrop Case was that the probative value of the witness' opinion is lacking if in the course of its development he has not been made acquainted with all of the essential facts. This was the extent of the holding in that case, and, pursuant to the well-defined power of the court on review, is the utmost that was intended by the holding.’

PER CURIAM.