Legal Opinion

Slanina v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1927No. 20549PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

An examination of the agreed statement of facts herein discloses that “on the 28th day of June, 1924, a destructive tornado struck the northern section of the city of Lorain.” The tornado blew a telephone pole against the automobile in which the plaintiff in error was riding, delivering merchandise for his employer, resulting in the injury for which compensation is sought. Is such injury compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the decisions of this court interpreting the same?

Ohio is one of the few states whose Workmen’s Compensation Act provides for liability “for injuries…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Merrill v. Penasco Lumber Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Aetna Life Insurance v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
  4. Reid v. Automatic Electric Washer Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1920
  5. Gale v. Krug Park Amusement Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  2. McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Malone v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Rush v. Empire Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1934

16 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