State ex rel. Bodnar v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Bodnar v. Industrial Commission

104 Ohio St. 3d 162

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 2004

DocketNo. 2004-0630

StatusPublished

This text of 104 Ohio St. 3d 162 (State ex rel. Bodnar v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Bodnar v. Industrial Commission, 104 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Law Offices of Thomas Tootle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas Tootle, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Paul H. Tonks, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P., and Lori A. Fricke, for appellee Shelly & Sands, Inc. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Law Offices of Thomas Tootle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas Tootle, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Paul H. Tonks, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P., and Lori A. Fricke, for appellee Shelly & Sands, Inc. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 Ohio St. 3d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bodnar-v-industrial-commission-ohio-2004.