Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 4, 1983No. 82-477PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Per curiam
In his application alleging noncompliance with a specific safety requirement, appellant claims that the employer failed to comply with the provisions contained in IC-5-09 and IC-5-10. In pertinent part IC-5-09.03 provides:
“(B) INTERNAL AND SPECIAL GRINDING EQUIPMENT
“Cup cylinder, tool, precision, flexible shaft type, portable and internal grinding equipment which utilize grinding wheels three (3) inches or more in *194diameter and are operated at a peripheral speed of three thousand (3000) feet per minute (fpm) or more, shall be provided with a guard unless they are equipped with protection…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
- State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Truckey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
3Cited by47 opinions
- State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2014
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.