State ex rel. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 1324, 93 Ohio St. 3d 189

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 2001

Docket2001-0256

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 1324 (State ex rel. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group 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. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 1324, 93 Ohio St. 3d 189 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 189.]

THE STATE EX REL. HOBART CORPORATION/PMI FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-1324.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-256—Submitted July 17, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-511. __________________ {¶ 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 and COOK, JJ., concur. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I dissent and would grant the requested writ of mandamus and return the matter to the Industrial Commission for reconsideration. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________ Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and John Tarkowsky, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey B. Hartranft, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Philip J. Fulton & Associates and William A. Thorman III, for appellee Douglas E. Moerch. __________________

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 93 Ohio St.3d 189.]

THE STATE EX REL. HOBART CORPORATION/PMI FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Hobart Corp./PMI Food Equip. Group v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-1324.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-256—Submitted July 17, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-511. __________________ {¶ 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 and COOK, JJ., concur. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I dissent and would grant the requested writ of mandamus and return the matter to the Industrial Commission for reconsideration. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________ Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and John Tarkowsky, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey B. Hartranft, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Philip J. Fulton & Associates and William A. Thorman III, for appellee Douglas E. Moerch. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 1324, 93 Ohio St. 3d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hobart-corppmi-food-equip-group-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack