Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1984No. 83-1569PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Per curiam

It is well-established that mandamus will not lie to vacate an order of the commission unless that order constitutes an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128, 130 [58 O.O.2d 319]. The interpretation of a specific safety requirement is within the sound discretion of the commission and will not be overturned except where the record contains no evidence upon which its findings could be based. State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47, 50 [1 O.O.2d 190].

Appellant argues that the commission’s interpretations…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Mees v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys FoundryOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State Ex Rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. A-F Industries v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989

30 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