Legal Opinion

State ex rel. R.E.H. Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 6, 1997No. 94-2503PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

At issue is a single specific safety requirement. Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05 provides:

“(D) Machinery control.
“(1) Disengaging from power supply.
“Means shall be provided at each machine, within easy reach of the operator, for disengaging it from its power supply. * * * ”

The commission, in assessing a violation, made several findings. It found that the on/off switch on the machine was not an effective means of disengagement and had a known history of malfunction. It further found that the two remaining means of shutoff — the wall plug and the on/off switch at the wall receptacle— were not within…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Quality Tower Service, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. R.E.H. Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Sunesis Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. State ex rel. Amanda Bent Bolt Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015

3 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