Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Luger

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 21, 1936No. 1338PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.

Error is prosecuted from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court on a verdict in favor of the defendant in error holding that he was entitled to be compensated from the Workmen’s Compensation Fund by reason of an injury which he suffered in the course of his employment.

The brief of plaintiff in error raises two questions (D Variance of proof, and (2) Failure on the part of defendant in error to show that the injury complained of was accidental in origin.

So much of the petition as is necessary to a consideration of the questions presented is as follows; claimant avers that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Matter of Heitz v. . RuppertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Vennen v. New Dells Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Baker v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  4. Crawford v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
  5. Industrial Commission v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bell v. Buckeye Steel Casting Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. Rettig v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Jordan v. Ternstedt Division General Motors Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1956
  4. Murphy v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
  5. Carroll v. Indust. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940

3 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