Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Case v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1986No. 86-667PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

Our first query is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that laches bars appellant’s action in mandamus. The doctrine of laches is based upon the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subve-niunt (the laws aid the vigilant, and not those who slumber on their rights). In our unanimous opinion in Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 34, 35, we set forth the applicable law as follows:

“ ‘Laches is an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party. It signifies delay independent of limitations in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Taylor v. GlasserOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Piatt v. VattierSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
  4. Connin v. BaileyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Hutton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Carver v. HullOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Knapp v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. MorehouseOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. William Powell Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. State ex rel. Pleban v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

25 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