Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Kirby v. S.G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1992No. 91-863PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

Appellant argues that a claimant must amend his or her VSSR application within thirty days after the claimant receives the commission’s investigatory report, or alternatively, that a claimant is never entitled to amend his or her application to allege violations that were not raised prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. See Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-20(A) and (A)(1); State ex rel. Bailey v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 53, 23 *435OBR 127, 491 N.E.2d 308. We agree that claimant’s original application did not allege a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-19(0), and that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Krahn v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State ex rel. Bailey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State ex rel. Dillon v. Dayton Press, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Barbara Kenty v. Bank One, Columbus, N.A., and Transamerica Premier Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
  2. Phillips v. RayburnOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. R. Bauer & Sons Roofing & Siding, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Oliver v. Southeastern Erectors, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

7 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