State ex rel. Unger v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
There are three components to claimant’s challenge, involving both the order itself and the circumstances surrounding its issuance. Claimant poses two challenges to the circumstances preceding the commission’s final order. Claimant initially asserts a due process violation based on allegedly ex parte communications between CSOE and the commission. Claimant’s argument fails for two reasons.
First, the record does not identify the extent, if any, to which ex parte communications actually took place. Because the claimant was already on notice as to the disposition of his application after the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- Juan Verdin v. Michael O'Leary and Neil F. HartiganCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Alvin Frazin, United States of America v. Ronald Mark MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State ex rel. Paraskevopoulos v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- City of Beachwood v. PearlOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
- State ex rel. Rocktenn Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
- State ex rel. Logan Clay Prods. Co. v. Indu. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
- Department of Transportation v. Indus. Comm., 08ap-303 (2-17-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.