Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1945No. 30040PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The relator maintains that under the facts adduced he is entitled to a writ to compel the Industrial Commission to allow him compensation for the loss of the sight of his right eye.

The applicable provision of the statute is that part of Section 1465-80, General Code (119 Ohio Laws, 569), which read as follows:

"Partial disability compensation shall be paid as follows: * * *
"(c) In cases included in the following schedule the compensation payable to the employee shall be sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the average weekly wage, not to exceed a maximum of twenty-one dollars per week, and…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. AutoZone, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Robinson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  3. State ex rel. Cogan v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2023
  4. State ex rel. Spangler Candy Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API