Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Roberts v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1984No. 83-716PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

In his application for an additional award based on Mobile’s alleged violation of a specific safety requirement, appellant listed Sections 1261 through 1274, Title 15, U.S. Code, Sections 1116 through 1750, Title 16, C.F.R., and R.C. Chapter 3716 as having been violated. Appellees argue that these sections are inapplicable to the instant proceeding and, as such, were properly rejected by the commission.

In State, ex rel. Trydle, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 257 [61 O.O.2d 488], the construction of the term “specific safety requirement” was addressed as follows:

“The term, ‘specific…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State ex rel. Dodson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Samkas v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co. v. OrwickOhio Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Domjancic v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Precision Steel Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API