State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 215, 92 Ohio St. 3d 431

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 8, 2001

Docket2000-2355

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 215 (State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm.) 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. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 215, 92 Ohio St. 3d 431 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 431.]

THE STATE EX REL. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-215.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-2355—Submitted June 20, 2001—Decided August 8, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1251. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Coolidge, Wall, Womsley & Lombard Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey D. Snyder and Nicholas E. Davis, Jr., for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Erica L. Armbrust, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. E.S. Gallon & Associates and Richard M. Malone, for appellee Ernest Sizemore. __________________

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 431.]

THE STATE EX REL. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-215.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-2355—Submitted June 20, 2001—Decided August 8, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1251. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Coolidge, Wall, Womsley & Lombard Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey D. Snyder and Nicholas E. Davis, Jr., for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Erica L. Armbrust, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. E.S. Gallon & Associates and Richard M. Malone, for appellee Ernest Sizemore. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 215, 92 Ohio St. 3d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-chrysler-corp-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack