Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Walters v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1985No. 85-26PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.

It is firmly established that the resolution of “* * * disputed factual situation's is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 15, 16 [58 O.O.2d 70].

This court has held that when there is no evidence upon which the *73commission could have based its order, there is an abuse of discretion and mandamus is appropriate. State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55, 58 [11 O.O.3d 216]. Conversely, where the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Goldsby v. GerberOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Kirk v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

9 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