Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1983No. 82-648PublishedCited by 54 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. 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

  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. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Lopez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990

49 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