State ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
For the reasons to follow we affirm the denial of the writ of mandamus.
The extraordinary writ of mandamus may only issue if relator has demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought. State, ex rel. Teece, v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 165 [22 O.O.3d 400]. Such demonstration is predicated upon an abuse of discretion by the Industrial Commis*79sion which, in turn, may be established only if the record is devoid of some evidence to support the commission’s order. State, ex rel. Hutton, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 9, 13 [58 O.O.2d 66]; State, ex rel. Teece, supra, at 167.
A…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Hutton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Marshall v. KellerOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- State ex rel. Meeks v. Ohio Brass Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Dallas v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by321 opinions
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. StoverOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Hughes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
316 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.