Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1981No. 81-472PublishedCited by 358 opinions

1Per curiam

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of showing a clear legal right to this writ as a remedy from a determination by the Industrial Commission of the extent of claimant’s injury is upon relator. See, generally, State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141. “It is well established that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Commission.. See State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128. Where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State ex rel. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. KriseOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by358 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State ex rel. McLean v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986

353 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