Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Morris v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1984No. 84-88PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

It is well-settled that “* * * the determination of disputed factual situations 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]; State, ex rel. Posey, v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 298, 299. An abuse of discretion will be found only where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion. State, ex rel. Posey, v. Indus. Comm., supra; State, ex rel. Questor…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State ex rel. Questor Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. v. LancasterOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Hughes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State ex rel. Brady v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State ex rel. Nelson McCoy Pottery Co. v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State ex rel. Rhodeback v. Johnstown Mfg., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

5 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