Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1935No. 24828PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The principle involved in this case is a very fundamental one. The relators seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus, which is available only to compel the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.

The respondent contends that the act thus sought to be compelled is not only not enjoined by law, but that it is unauthorized by law, and that the refusal to issue the voucher sought is based upon the want of legal authority so to do, as stated in their entry.

An examination of the statutes governing the Industrial Commission and its action and procedure in the administration of the Workmen's…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. KamrathOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Industrial Commission v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Fisher Body Co. v. ChefloOhio Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Balatsos v. Nebraska Avenue Cafe & Liquor StoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1947
  2. Wallace v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Sanford v. D & T Limousine Service, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Michaels v. MorseOhio Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API