Legal Opinion

Cramer v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1944No. 29995PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The sole question presented is whether the claim of plaintiff for permanent and total dis ability for a period subsequent to September 15, 1938, is barred by the judgment in the prior case by which he was allowed $5 per week for a period of 666 weeks, extending from January 1, 1926, to September 15, 1938.

The courts below, in holding that the claim of plaintiff was not barred, based their decisions on the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in Clendenen v. Industrial Commission, 140 Ohio St., 414, 45 N. E. (2d), 108, which reads thus:

“An appeal to the Court of Common Pleas by a claimant for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clendenen v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. B.O.C. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State ex rel Brown v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Ford Motor Co. v. Johnson, 07ap-1084 (9-25-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State ex rel. Navistar Internatl. Transp. Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API