State ex rel. Lantz v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Lantz v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 426, 83 Ohio St. 3d 99

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1998

Docket1996-1951

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 426 (State ex rel. Lantz 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. Lantz v. Indus. Comm., 1998 Ohio 426, 83 Ohio St. 3d 99 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 99.]

THE STATE EX REL. LANTZ, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLEES; E.G. SMITH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Lantz v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-426.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal. (No. 96-1951—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided September 9, 1998.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD07-840. __________________ R.E. Goforth Co., L.P.A., and Steven G. Thomakos, for appellant and cross- appellee. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Sotos, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees and cross-appellees. Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy, Salvatore J. LoPresti, Keith A. Ganther and Michael B. Fesler, for appellee and cross-appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the appeal and cross-appeal consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 99.]

THE STATE EX REL. LANTZ, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLEES; E.G. SMITH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Lantz v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-426.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal. (No. 96-1951—Submitted July 8, 1998—Decided September 9, 1998.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD07-840. __________________ R.E. Goforth Co., L.P.A., and Steven G. Thomakos, for appellant and cross- appellee. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Sotos, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees and cross-appellees. Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy, Salvatore J. LoPresti, Keith A. Ganther and Michael B. Fesler, for appellee and cross-appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the appeal and cross-appeal consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 426, 83 Ohio St. 3d 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lantz-v-indus-comm-ohio-1998.