Legal Opinion

Parrott v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1945No. 30085PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHast, J.

The question to be determined is whether plaintiff, under the circumstances of- this case, was within the course of his employment at the time he received his injuries.

This court has heretofore held that an injury occurs in the course of employment, if there is a causal connection between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. Industrial Commission v. Weigandt, 102 Ohio St., 1, 7, 130 N. E., 38; Industrial Commission v. Ahern, 119 Ohio St., 41, 162 N. E., 272, 59 A. L. R., 367; Malone v. Industrial Commission, 140 Ohio St., 292, 303, 43 N. E.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Malone v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Rayner v. Sligh Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Industrial Commission v. AhernOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Metropolitan Life Ins. v. ContieOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Baker v. Wendy's of Montana, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
  5. H. K. Ferguson Co. v. WilleyWyoming Supreme Court · 1977

23 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