Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The facts are stated in the opinion. Argued simultaneously with No. 456 by the same counsel on the same briefs.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
This case, was submitted with. No. 456, just decided. In the latter case the complainant in the court below and appellant here was a corporation of Virginia. The appellant. in the pending case is a corporation of dhio, and counsel say “although there are some differences in the way in which their business is conducted, yet the questions involved are the same, the records in both cases are nearly identical,, and the court below treated them together, rendering the one opinion to cover both.” And counsel have submitted them on the same argument.
On the authority, therefore, of thé opinion in No.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gaylord v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- MATTER OF JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Pathe Exchange, Inc. v. CobbAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Eureka Productions, Inc. v. LehmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1936
- Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Board of RegentsNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.