Smith v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Industrial Commission

95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 23, 1917·No. No. 15431·Published

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Substantially the same objections to the validity of Section 27 of the act referred to are urged by counsel for the plaintiff as were presented [253]*253to this court in the case of Fassig v. The State, ex rel. Turner, Atty. Genl., decided this day.

For the reasons given in the opinion in that case the demurrer to the petition in this case will be sustained and the petition dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson, J.

Substantially the same objections to the validity of Section 27 of the act referred to are urged by counsel for the plaintiff as were presented [253]*253to this court in the case of Fassig v. The State, ex rel. Turner, Atty. Genl., decided this day.

For the reasons given in the opinion in that case the demurrer to the petition in this case will be sustained and the petition dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Smith v. Industrial Commission, 95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251 (Ohio 1917).

Pincite

95 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251 (Smith v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.