State ex rel. Capital City Excavating Co. v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
The main issue raised by the instant cause is whether mandamus should lie to vacate the order of the Industrial Commission either because Rule IC-3-05.03(A) (5) of the Industrial Commission is not a specific safety requirement pursuant to Section 35 of Article II of the Ohio Constitution1 or because the commission abused its discretion when it made the specific safety requirement violation award.
I
Under the workers’ compensation scheme, an employee who has been injured because his employer has violated a specific safety requirement is eligible for additional compensation from that employer.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Com.Ohio Supreme Court · 1948
- State ex rel. Reed v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Brilliant Electric Sign Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
- State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Dodson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.