Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Stover

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1987No. 86-1357Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWright, J.

I agree with the statement espoused in paragraph one of the syllabus, as well as Parts I and IIC of the majority’s decision. However, I am compelled to express vigorous disagreement with the rationale contained within Parts IIA and B, and the second paragraph of the syllabus.

The focal point of this case centers upon the intent of the General Assembly in enacting R.C. 4123.57(C) which provides that:

“For the permanent partial loss of sight of an eye, such portion of one hundred twenty-five weeks as the commission may in each case determine, based upon the percentage of vision actually lost as a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bernardini v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State ex rel. G F Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Dougherty v. TorrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Twin Valley Local School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1983

5 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