Legal Opinion

Fisher v. Mayfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1990No. 88-1764PublishedCited by 132 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

The sole issue before this court is whether appellant’s injury arose “out of and in the course of her employment,” thus bringing the injury within the parameters of R.C. 4123.01(C).

R.C. 4123.01(C) provides in pertinent part: “ ‘Injury’ includes any injury, whether caused by external accidental means or accidental in character and result, received in the course of, and arising out of, the injured employee’s employment. * * *” Ohio’s workers’ compensation statute, as do those of the vast majority of states, contains the basic coverage formula: “in the course of, and arising out of” employment.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lord v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Bralley v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Industrial Commission v. GintertOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Kohlmayer v. KellerOhio Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by132 opinions

  1. Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. MTD Products, Inc. v. RobatinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

127 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