State ex rel. King v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. King v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 43, 91 Ohio St. 3d 378

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 2001

Docket2000-1212

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 43 (State ex rel. King 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. King v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 43, 91 Ohio St. 3d 378 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 378.]

THE STATE EX REL. KING, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Cite as State ex rel. King v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-43.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1212—Submitted February 27, 2001—Decided April 25, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-605. __________________ {¶ 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. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. __________________ McCrory & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Kurt M. Young, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Bugbee & Conkle and Richard L. Johnson, for appellee Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company. __________________

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 91 Ohio St.3d 378.]

THE STATE EX REL. KING, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Cite as State ex rel. King v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-43.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1212—Submitted February 27, 2001—Decided April 25, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-605. __________________ {¶ 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. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. __________________ McCrory & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Kurt M. Young, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Bugbee & Conkle and Richard L. Johnson, for appellee Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 43, 91 Ohio St. 3d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-king-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack