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

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 17, 1964·No. Nos. 38594 and 38595·Published

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.

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

Pincite

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 349 (State ex rel. Hall China Co. v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.