Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Bateman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1933No. 23747PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

The fact that Bateman, in his mandamus proceeding, secured an order for the payment of his wage during the period of his discharge, is no bar to the defense of the Industrial Commission, for the reason that it was not a party to the mandamus suit; and for the further reason that in such mandamus action the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass upon an award of compensation from the insurance fund; its jurisdiction in that respect being appellate after denial of compensation by the commission.

We agree with the statement contained in the brief of counsel for defendant in error that “the only…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Indemnity Co. v. DinkinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  2. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  3. Industrial Commission v. DavisonOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  4. State Ex Rel. Powhatan Mining Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Behner v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1951

19 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