Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Bartholome

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1934No. 24369PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

The Industrial Commission claims that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed for three reasons:

First, that the Common Pleas Court erred in admitting into its record the testimony of the decedent, Joseph Bartholome, taken at the rehearing before the Industrial Commission on August 19, 1930, in connection with his application for compensation, which was prior to and a separate action from the one which the widow now brings.

Second, that the Common Pleas Court erred in allowing certain hypothetical questions to be answered by one of claimant’s witnesses, Dr. Moore, for the rea…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. FrankenOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Industrial Commission v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Industrial Commission v. PalmerOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. State Ex Rel. Eastman v. StuartOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Coutellier v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Malone v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Welch v. County of EssexNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  4. Burkhart v. H.J. Heinz Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Gorman v. Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945

15 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