Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Rothkegel v. City of Westlake

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 2000No. 98-1203PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Claimant initially alleges the right to a return of the cause to the commission pursuant to State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057, based on the lack of reference to the Anderson vocational report in the commission’s order. Fultz, however, does not apply. Fultz applies only where the disputed PTD order lists the evidence considered and omits a report from that list. In such a case, the evidence omitted is presumed to have been ignored. Where, as here, the commission lists only the evidence relied upon, omission does not raise the presumption that the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Fultz v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Lovell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Moss v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Buttolph v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Digiacinto v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. State ex rel. Rothkegel v. WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Rumpke Consol. Cos., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. State Ex Rel. McBride v. United Home Care, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. State Ex Rel. Tharp v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (9-27-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005

1 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