State ex rel. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 154, 83 Ohio St. 3d 120

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

Docket1996-2380

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 154 (State ex rel. Dayton Walther 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. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 1998 Ohio 154, 83 Ohio St. 3d 120 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 120.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] DAYTON WALTHER CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; GRIMES, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-154.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 96-2380—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided September 16, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD08-1019. __________________ Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, L.P.A., Gary W. Auman, William H. Barney III and William P. Allen, for appellant. E.S. Gallon & Associates and Richard M. Malone, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ DOUGLAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 2} I would affirm, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals and reverse, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals. In so doing, I would reinstate the order of the commission. F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 120.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] DAYTON WALTHER CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; GRIMES, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-154.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 96-2380—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided September 16, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD08-1019. __________________ Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, L.P.A., Gary W. Auman, William H. Barney III and William P. Allen, for appellant. E.S. Gallon & Associates and Richard M. Malone, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ DOUGLAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 2} I would affirm, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals and reverse, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals. In so doing, I would reinstate the order of the commission. F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 154, 83 Ohio St. 3d 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dayton-walther-corp-v-indus-comm-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack