Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Mees v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1972No. 71-477PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

The question presented for our review is whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying appellant’s application for an additional award. As the court said in the syllabus of State, ex rel. Stuber, v. Indus. Comm. (1933), 127 Ohio St. 325:

“In an action in mandamus, to compel the Industrial Commission to make an allowance of additional compensation under the terms of Section 35 of Article II of the Constitution of Ohio, the relator, in order to succeed, must show that the finding of the commission against him amounted to an abuse of discretion.”

Pursuant to authority granted…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys FoundryOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984

21 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