Legal Opinion

State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1992No. 91-401PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Per curiam

The administrator moved to intervene pursuant to Civ.R. 24(A)(2), which allows intervention as of right when the applicant claims an interest that may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and the interest is not adequately protected by existing parties. We agree that the administrator has an interest in protecting the State Surplus Fund, from which relator will likely seek reimbursement of benefits it has already paid if Mulig’s claim is ultimately denied. See R.C. 4123.519(G) and 4123.515. The administrator also has an interest in defending against the argument that he lacked…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Adams v. GusweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Largent v. FisherOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Department of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State ex rel. Tollis v. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Connor v. McGoughOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga County BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Agee v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 2001

60 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