Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1985No. 84-601PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

By this original action in mandamus, relator maintains the commission abused its discretion by failing to find a violation of the following safety requirements contained in Ohio Adm. Code 4121:1-3-12:

“(E) Minimum instructions for qualifying operators.
“Instructions to operators in order to teach them the use of portable explosive-actuated fastening tools shall include, but shall not be limited to the following items:
“(1) Before using a tool, the operator shall inspect it to determine that it is clean, that all moving parts operate freely, and that the barrel is free from obstructions.
“(2) When…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. G F Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Roberts v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys FoundryOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State Ex Rel. Weich Roofing, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. State ex rel. G & S Metal Products, Inc. v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Cincinnati Drum Service, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990

2 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