State Ex Rel. Latta v. White
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The Attorney General, on behalf of the respondents, in support of their demurrer to relator’s petition claims that it must affirmatively appear that the relator is a party beneficially interested in the relief sought (Section 12287, General Code); and that, while the village is an employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the relator, as chief of police of the village of Glendale, is not an employee but an officer of the village, and in case of injury or death in performing the duties of his office, neither he nor his dependents are entitled to participate in the workmen’s…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Stanley v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- State, Ex Rel. v. CleveOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- State ex rel. Brophy v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1943