Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Mansour v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1969No. 69-69PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

A major contribution to the confusion presented in this appeal is the ambiguity of the order of the Industrial Commission in which relator’s motion for a change of election was denied, i. e., “for the reason that such procedure is not indicated.” The commission argues in its brief that the motion was denied because relator “failed to show good cause for his request to change election.” Apparently the court below did not arrive at a similar conclusion, for in its per curiam opinion that court clearly stated that “the commission refused to grant the motion because of the commission’s Rule 15…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  3. State ex rel. Latino v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State ex rel. Benton v. Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State ex rel. Foley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Zavatsky v. StringerOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State ex rel. Bosch v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State ex rel. Campbell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. State ex rel. O.M. Scott & Sons Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986

10 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