Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Posey v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1984No. 83-893PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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]. See, also, State, ex rel. Griffin, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 264 [24 O.O.3d 348]. Only where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion will an abuse of discretion be found. State, ex rel. Quaestor Corp., v. Indus. Comm.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Gilbert v. Midland-Ross Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State ex rel. Questor Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State ex rel. Morris v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State ex rel. Burroughs v. Ohio Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys. Bd. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State Ex Rel. Consol. Coal Co. v. Alexander, Unpublished Decision (8-1-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006

2 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