Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Bailey v. Krise

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1969No. 68-519PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchneider, J.

This cause was submitted to the Court of Appeals upon the pleadings, in which the parties admitted that relator was entitled to compensation from the state insurance fund by reason of Prendergast v. Indus. Comm. (1940), 136 Ohio St. 535. Thus, we assume that the “employing industry and his [the employee’s] relationship thereto are localized in Ohio” (136 Ohio St., at 543), even though relator neither resided nor was working in Ohio. Prendergast held that the state’s interest in the employment relationship supports the right of an employee of an Ohio employer to compensation from the state…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  2. The AntelopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
  3. Zajkowski v. American Steel & Wire Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Prendergast v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Pritchard v. State, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Health & Social ServicesWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Eaton v. Continental General InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
  4. Lynch v. MayfieldOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. State ex rel. Winzeler Excavating Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992

8 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