Legal Opinion

Noggle v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1935No. 25035PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Noggle was injured and made his application in February, 1918. His counsel, therefore, contends that his right of appeal is governed by the statute in force at the time of filing his application under the principle announced in Industrial Commission v. Vail, 110 Ohio St., 304, 143 N. E., 716, and W. S. Tyler Co. v. Rebic, 118 Ohio St., 522, 161 N. E., 790. Accepting his viewpoint on that question, we will consider the construction of that part of the section which relates to the right of appeal from the Industrial Commission to the Common Pleas Court.

Section 1465-90, General Code (107 Ohio…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. VailOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State Ex Rel. Hile v. ZangerleOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Industrial Commission v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. W. S. Tyler Co. v. RebicOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Industrial Commission v. HogleOhio Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Zavatsky v. StringerOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Logsdon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Humphries v. Wheeling Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Rummel v. FlowersOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Stough v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944

17 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