Legal Opinion

Nayman v. Kilbane

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1982No. 81-1787PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue to be resolved on this appeal is whether a writ of prohibition should issue in this cause to prevent appellee from exercising jurisdiction in the action filed against the appellants by Mazza. Appellants contend the Workers’ Compensation Act, R.C. 4123.74, -4123.741 and Section 35, Article II, of the Ohio Constitution, grant a complying employer absolute immunity for intentional torts resulting in injury to an employee, when that employee’s injury is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. From this the appellants conclude such claims by employees for intentional torts are…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Balson v. DoddsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. WalinskiOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  4. State ex rel. Henry v. BrittOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State ex rel. Stough v. Bd. of Edn. of the Norton City School Dist.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Jones v. VIP Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Continental Insurance v. WhittingtonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Celebrezze v. NetzleyOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Egan v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

14 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