Industrial Commission v. Bateman
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- American Indemnity Co. v. DinkinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Industrial Commission v. DavisonOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- State Ex Rel. Powhatan Mining Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
3Cited by24 opinions
- Stevens v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
- Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Behner v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1951
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.