Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Middleton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1933No. 23302PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

The Industrial Commission claims there is error in the record, as follows: That the judgment of the Court of Appeals should have been for plaintiff in error; that the Court of Appeals should have rendered final judgment for plaintiff in error; that there are other errors apparent on the face of the record.

The record discloses that the defendant below moved for an instructed verdict on the statement of the case by counsel for plaintiff below. Defendant below moved for an instructed verdict at the close of the testimony of plaintiff below and at the close of all the testimony.

Plaintiff in error…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Renkel v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Industrial Commission v. HamptonOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Industrial Comm. of Ohio v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Burns v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Industrial Commission v. LambertOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Claim of Lurye v. Stern Bros. Department StoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  4. Industrial Commission v. ArmacostOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Industrial Commission v. BrummOhio Supreme Court · 1935

9 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