Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Aspinwall v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1988No. 87-1519PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the commission, subject to correction in mandamus only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47, 1 O.O. 2d 190, 139 N.E. 2d 41. Where the record contains some evidence to support the commission’s findings, there has been no abuse of discretion and mandamus will not lie. State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E. 2d 936. In making a YSSR award, the commission must determine that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State ex rel. Geauga Industries, Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State ex rel. Carlton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Garza v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Advanced Metal Precision Products v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State Ex Rel. Gerstenslager Co. v. Wilson, 06ap-512 (5-31-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State ex rel. Scott Fetzer Co., Halex Div. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

1 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