State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
In his brief the Attorney General urges two reasons why the relator should not be granted relief. First, He contends that an employee, who has obtained an award against a noncomplying employer, is not entitled to payment of the award out of the surplus fund before a court or jury has affirmed the finding of the commission. The last paragraph of. Section 1465-74, General Code (111 Ohio Laws, 223), reads as follows: "The payment of any judgment recovered in the manner provided herein shall entitle such claimant to the compensation provided by this act for such injury, occupational disease or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Thompson v. Indust CommOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- State, Ex Rel., Davis v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by7 opinions
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
- State v. Industrial Commission of Ohio.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Larimore v. Perfect, Admr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1932
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
- Lane Construction Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.