Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ruggles v. Stebbins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1975No. 74-383PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant lists seven propositions of law in her appeal. However, the basic issne before the conrt is “* * * whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying appellant’s application for an additional award.” State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128, 130, 279 N. E. 2d 861. This follows from the holdings in State, ex rel. Trydle, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 257, 291 N. E. 2d 748, and State, ex rel. Stuber, v. Indus. Comm. (1933), 127 Ohio St. 325, 188 N. E. 526, that in an action in mandamus to compel the Industrial Commission to make an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Mees v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State ex rel. City Iron Works, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of OhioOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Davis v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Sorrells v. Mosier Tree ServiceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State ex rel. Peeples v. Farley Paving Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981

2 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