State ex rel. Gauvey v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Gauvey v. Indus. Comm.

2002 Ohio 74, 94 Ohio St. 3d 38

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 2002

Docket2001-1144

StatusPublished

This text of 2002 Ohio 74 (State ex rel. Gauvey 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. Gauvey v. Indus. Comm., 2002 Ohio 74, 94 Ohio St. 3d 38 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 38.]

THE STATE EX REL. GAUVEY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Gauvey v. Indus. Comm., 2002-Ohio-74.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-1144—Submitted November 13, 2001—Decided January 9, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-979. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. __________________ ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant relator the requested relief in accordance with State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Lonas, McGonegal & Tsangeos and Terrance J. McGonegal, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Keith D. Blosser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Roetzel & Andress, Douglas E. Spiker and Noel C. Shepard, for appellee Handy & Harmon Automotive Group, Inc. __________________

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 94 Ohio St.3d 38.]

THE STATE EX REL. GAUVEY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Gauvey v. Indus. Comm., 2002-Ohio-74.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-1144—Submitted November 13, 2001—Decided January 9, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-979. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. __________________ ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant relator the requested relief in accordance with State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Lonas, McGonegal & Tsangeos and Terrance J. McGonegal, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Keith D. Blosser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Roetzel & Andress, Douglas E. Spiker and Noel C. Shepard, for appellee Handy & Harmon Automotive Group, Inc. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Ohio 74, 94 Ohio St. 3d 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gauvey-v-indus-comm-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack