Rettig v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By HORNBECK, J.
An appeal on questions of law from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The issue presented is whether or not plaintiff is entitled to participate in The Workmen’s Compensation Fund by reason of having suffered an injury while in the course of his employment.
There is little or no dispute in the facts developed. Plaintiff, a man of sixty-eight years of age and in apparent good health, was employed by The Miami Valley Chautauqua Company, which owned and operated a large tract of land between Miamis-burg and Franklin, upon which were an auditorium, cottages and such…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brown v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
- State Roads Commission v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
- Young v. Western Furniture & Manufacturing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1917
- Roach v. Kelsey Wheel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Skelly Oil Co. v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1938
- Aurand v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Carroll v. Indust. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940