Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Advanced Metal Precision Products v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 2006No. 2005-1631PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} We are asked to revisit the definition ascribed to the term “operating cycle” as used in former Ohio Adm.Code Jl^lrl-S-INE).1 Upon review, we conclude that the definition merits a more expansive interpretation than used currently and hold that “operating cycle” includes both intentional and accidental press activation by the machine’s operator.

{¶ 2} Appellee, Advanced Metal Precision Products, uses a Haeger press to affix fasteners onto flat or preformed metal assemblies. The press accommodates conductive and nonconductive materials, and its safety system adapts to either press setting.

{…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Westfield Insurance v. GalatisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys FoundryOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. M. T. D. Products, Inc. v. StebbinsOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. State Ex Rel. United States Steel Corp. v. CookOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. State ex rel. Aspinwall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Gilbert v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State ex rel. Strawser v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  3. State Ex Rel. Gerstenslager Co. v. Wilson, 06ap-512 (5-31-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API