Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Hoover Co. v. Mihm
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 9, 1996No. 94-1788PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Two issues are presented for our review. First, is the promulgation of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-32(D) invalid due to BWC’s failure to comply with R.C. Chapter 119? Second, does BWC owe a duty, by virtue of the asserted improper promulgation of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-32(D), either to grant retroactive effect to Hoover’s notice of withdrawal or to calculate Hoover’s assessment for the first half of 1990 under the pre-1990 standard? For the reasons that follow, we hold that Hoover has no right to BWC’s performance of the requested acts, regardless of whether Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-32(D) was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. Huntington Insurance Agency, Inc. v. DuryeeOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Condee v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Dressler Coal Corp. v. CallOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
- DLZ Corp. v. Ohio Department of Administrative ServicesOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation McNeilus Financial Services, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation McNeilus Financial, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. State of Ohio, Ex Rel. Betty Montgomery, Attorney General for the State of Ohio Mitchell J. Brown, Commissioner of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles,defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- State ex rel. United Auto Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Ohio ex rel. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- State ex rel. Hoover Co. v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. United Auto Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.