State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentCelebrezze, C.J.
I certainly agree with the plurality’s statement that the writ of mandamus should not issue from this court in the absence of a showing by the relator that he has a clear legal right to the relief which the Industrial Commission is under a clear legal duty to provide. Likewise, I concur in the plurality’s emphasis of our obligation to construe the workers’ compensation laws in a remedial manner. Finally, I concur in the plurality’s reaffirmance at fn. 2 of the continuing validity of this court’s holding in State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55 [11 O.O.3d 216],…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Hedrick v. Motorists Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.