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

  1. State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State ex rel. Truckey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2014

42 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