Case v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMatthews, J.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the record shows substantial evidence, not manifestly outweighed by contrary evidence, that the relation existing between Walter V. Case and The Troy-Pearl Laundry Company was that of employer and employee, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was no writing evidencing the terms of the relation. No witness testified to any • oral agreement between the parties on the subject. The conduct of the parties furnishes the only light found in the record. Whether it is sufficiently strong to distinguish the relation of employer…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. LairdOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Industrial Commission v. McAdowOhio Supreme Court · 1933
3Cited by3 opinions
- Faulkner v. MayfieldOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Deryck v. Akron City School Dist.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Dortch, Inc. v. GoldsteinBedford Municipal Court · 1964