Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hughes v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1982No. 81-1068PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

The instant cause presents two questions: (1) Did the appellate court act improperly in issuing a writ of mandamus which compelled the commission to adopt either of two options and (2) did the commission abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for permanent and total disability? We answer both queries in the affirmative.

I

In order for a writ of mandamus to issue, the party seeking the writ must prove that the official against whom the writ is directed is under a “clear legal duty” to perform the desired act and, thus, that the relator has a “clear legal right” to the relief sought…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. BaconOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Thompson v. Fenix & Scisson, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State ex rel. Robinson-Bond v. Champaign Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. State ex rel. Stroup v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State Ex Rel. Kosman v. City of StrongsvilleOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3 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