Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Stanadyne, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1984No. 83-721PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

This court has often stated 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]. See, also, State, ex rel. Griffin, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 264, 265 [24 O.O.3d 348]; State, ex rel. Paragon, v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 72, 74. An abuse of discretion is present only where there is no evidence upon which the commission could…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State ex rel. Kramer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Gilbert v. Midland-Ross Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Gatlin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API