State ex rel. Fiber-Lite Corp. v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant first argues that it was error for the commission to conclude that the blade involved was a guillotine-type cutter. Appellant urges that the design of the machine indicated that, because the blade cut in an arc-like fashion, the blade more resembled a scissors-type cutting blade. Appellant concludes that when the entire operating procedure of the cutter is considered, there is reliable, probative and substantial evidence to support its position that there was no violation of a specific safety requirement.
Initially, we must take issue with appellant’s recitation of the standard of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Thompson v. Fenix & Scisson, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Sanchez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
3Cited by25 opinions
- State ex rel. Bennett v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State ex rel. 31, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
- State ex rel. Koepf v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
- State ex rel. Colliver v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.