Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Gardinio

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1929No. 21086PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatti-iias, J.

The record presents the general question of the extraterritorial operation of the Ohio workmen’s compensation law. The specific question before us is whether the workmen’s compensation fund is available to an employee injured while engaged in the performance of a contract to do specified work in another state, and no part of which is to be performed in Ohio.

A great many cases have been cited, and we have considered many in addition thereto, and find that comparatively few of them are helpful in the consideration of the proposition before us, because of the varying provisions of the several…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Claim of Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  3. Watts v. LongNebraska Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Ginsburg v. ByersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  5. Banks v. Albert D. Howlett Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1918

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bridges v. National Engineering & Contracting Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Prendergast v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Hall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1936
  4. State ex rel. Stanadyne, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Texas Employers' Insurance v. JamesTexas Supreme Court · 1938

13 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