State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
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. Allerton, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 396 [23 O.O.3d 358]. Furthermore, where the record contains some evidence which supports the commission’s factual findings, those findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Lopez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.