Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ochs v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1999No. 97-113PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

The bureau claims that it has no duty to explain its decision because no statute specifically imposes one. It seeks to distinguish cases such State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721; State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245; and State ex rel. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 139, 642 N.E.2d 378, by observing that those cases involved the Industrial Commission of Ohio, which did, and continues to, have a statutory duty under former R.C. 4123.515 to explain its…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State ex rel Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. VanCleave v. School Employees Retirement SystemOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State ex rel. Johnston v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State Ex Rel. Craftsmen Basement Finishing System, Inc. v. RyanOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement SystemOhio Supreme Court · 2002

8 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