Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1988No. Nos. 87-622, 87-1887, 88-205 and 88-1312Published

1Concurrence · DouglasDouglas, J.

Because I believe the majority opinion is somewhat confusing and, in part, wrong, I write separately.

Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides, in part:

“For the purpose of providing compensation to workmen and their dependents, for death, injuries or occupational disease, occasioned in the course of such workmen’s employment, laws may be passed establishing a state fund to be created by compulsory contribution thereto by employers, and administered by the state, determining the terms and conditions upon which payment shall be made therefrom.”

*412I

Pursuant to this authority, the…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Sweeney.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State ex rel. Martin v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Bryant v. Pinkerton's, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API