Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 1934No. 24653PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is an original action in mandamus wherein the relator, James Kildow, prays this court to order the Industrial Commission of Ohio to perform its legal duty.

What is the legal duty of the Industrial Commission, under the facts in this case and the law applied thereto?

There is no dispute as to the facts. They are agreed. Hence we have a pure question of law.

Kildow was accidentally injured in the course of his employment, while working for an insured employer. He made claim to the Industrial Commission of Ohio for compensation. The Industrial Commission found his case to be compensable. In…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. State Ex Rel. Automobile MacHine Co. v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Doyle v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. GranderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Zangerle v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Besl Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Neil House Hotel Co. v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1944

34 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