State ex rel. Cordray v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The commission does not dispute appellant’s claim that the Rosenthal and Barnett reports were not considered. Appellant claims this omission constitutes either an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process. For the following reasons, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision.
Appellant’s due process allegation may be quickly disposed of since it was not raised below. State, ex rel. Gibson, v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 319, 530 N.E. 2d 916. Appellant unpersuasively responds that the constitutional claims could not have been raised previously. The alleged violations, however,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Lawrence v. American Lubricants Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- State ex rel. Gibson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
3Cited by16 opinions
- State ex rel. Domjancic v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Lackey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State Ex Rel. Secreto v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Schlegel v. Stykemain Pontiac Buick GMC, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.