Legal Opinion

Iden v. Atkinson, Admr.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1941No. 28442PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

The sole question raised by the defendant at this time is whether the plaintiff’s petition contains facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

The plaintiff states that he has invoked this extraordinary remedy because he is in doubt whether he can otherwise contest the validity of the contribution levied by the defendant under favor of Section 1346-4, General Code, which in part provides that “Except as herein provided, any decision made by the administrator or a deputy of the administrator by the board of review or one of its referees shall be…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bowman v. Atkinson, Admr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation v. MatteoOhio Court of Appeals · 1967
  2. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc. v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation v. FranklinOhio Supreme Court · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API