Legal Opinion
Crawford v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided January 4, 1932No. 1084PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHornbeck, J.
We consider the second claim first, namely, the unconstitutionality of the statute. In State ex Kauffman v The Industrial Commission of Ohio, Marshall, CJ, used this language:
“We are informed by the allegations of the pleadings certain additional evidence was in fact introduced but it is quite certain at this time (December 18, 1929) and may therefore be stated as a guidance to further cases that additional evidence may not be introduced at the trial upon appeal, but that the case must be heard in court upon the evidence adduced before the Commission.”
It is true as claimed, by counsel for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Industrial Comm. v. BetleyounOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
- Industrial Commission v. GillardOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Rosichan v. HooseOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
3Cited by5 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. LugerOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Bauer v. Industrial CommissionStark County Court of Common Pleas · 1938
- Carroll v. Indust. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
- Esmonde v. Lima Locomotive Works, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935
- Industrial Commission v. StifflerOhio Court of Appeals · 1933