Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Lampkins v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1989No. 88-214PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Per curiam

Where the record contains “some evidence” to support the commission’s findings, there has been no abuse of discretion and mandamus will not lie. State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E. 2d 936. We are asked to determine whether the commission order at bar is supported by “some evidence.” We hold that it is not.

The parties concentrate on the sufficiency of the Walker and Walsh *16reports under State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55, 11 O.O. 3d 216, 386 N.E. 2d 1109. That decision held that a non-examining physician’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Hughes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Zamora v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Kinsey v. Board of TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State ex rel. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Fields v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State ex rel. Bowie v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996

31 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