Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Durant v. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1994No. 93-798PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

This dispute has three components: (1) claimant’s C85A claim reactivation, (2) chiropractic treatment, and (3) overpayment. Upon review, we affirm in full the appellate court’s disposition of the first two. Its judgment as to the remaining question is upheld only in part.

Common to each challenge is the March 16,1990 staff hearing — either in terms of the proceeding itself or the order that it generated. As to the former, Superior’s Brand contends that its pending motion for suspension of further activity in claimant’s claim should have prevented the March 1990 hearing from going forward. We…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Ham v. Chrysler CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
  4. State ex rel. B.O.C. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Metzger v. Chemetron Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. Kirby v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. Kirby v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State ex rel. Honda of America Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007

6 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