Legal Opinion

Carter v. Division of Water

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1946No. 30379PublishedCited by 77 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

The rejection of the claim for unemployment compensation by the board of review was based upon its conclusion that the city of Youngstown was not an “employer” within the scope of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Act, being Section 1345-1 et seq., General Code.

It may bo noted at the outset that, although the “Division of Water” was designated as the employer and thus appears in the caption of the claim as filed, appropriate amendment was thereafter made, and throughout the proceeding the city of Youngstown has been regarded as the employer of the claimant.

The precise question presented is…

2Cited by77 opinions

  1. Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Summerville v. City of Forest ParkOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Elston v. Howland Local SchoolsOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Meeks v. PapadopulosOhio Supreme Court · 1980

72 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