State ex rel. Hall China Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hall China Co. v. Industrial Commission

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 349

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 17, 1964

DocketNos. 38594 and 38595

StatusPublished

This text of 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 349 (State ex rel. Hall China Co. 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. Hall China Co. v. Industrial Commission, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 349 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Industrial Commission, a fact-finding administrative agency, has made factual determinations in [350]*350these causes. This court cannot say, from an examination of the records, that the commission abused its discretion in making such findings. A clear legal right to writs of mandamus has not been established.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The Industrial Commission, a fact-finding administrative agency, has made factual determinations in [350]*350these causes. This court cannot say, from an examination of the records, that the commission abused its discretion in making such findings. A clear legal right to writs of mandamus has not been established.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hall-china-co-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1964.