State ex rel. Kokocinski v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
It is well-settled that “the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 15, 16 [58 O.O.2d 70]. Furthermore, “where the record contains some evidence to support the commission’s factual findings, these findings will not be disturbed.” State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 77 [14 O.O.3d 275]. Conversely, “[w]here there is no evidence upon which the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Milburn v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. Walters v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Woodard v. Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Smith v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.