State ex rel. Stanadyne, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Kramer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Gilbert v. Midland-Ross Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Gatlin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985