State ex rel. Anderson v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In substance, appellant alleges that the commission abused its discretion in denying his motion for permanent and total disability. It is well established that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Commission. However, where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion an abuse of discretion is presented and mandamus becomes appropriate. State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55.
We agree with appellant that the commission’s conclusion that he is not permanently and totally…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by8 opinions
- Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Martin v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Hughes v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State ex rel. Koonce v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Nolasco v. Borg-Warner Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.