State ex rel. Marston v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Marston v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 225, 90 Ohio St. 3d 569

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

Docket2000-0749

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 225 (State ex rel. Marston 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. Marston v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 225, 90 Ohio St. 3d 569 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 90 Ohio St.3d 569.]

THE STATE EX REL. MARSTON, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Marston v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-225.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-749—Submitted November 14, 2000—Decided January 17, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-554. _______________ {¶ 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 LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. COOK, J., dissents. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I agree with the rationale set forth in the dissenting opinion of Judge Deshler; therefore, I am unable to join the majority in affirming the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________ Becker, Reed & Tilton and Dennis A. Becker, for appellee. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thomas L. Reitz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. __________________

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 90 Ohio St.3d 569.]

THE STATE EX REL. MARSTON, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Marston v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-225.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-749—Submitted November 14, 2000—Decided January 17, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-554. _______________ {¶ 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 LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. COOK, J., dissents. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I agree with the rationale set forth in the dissenting opinion of Judge Deshler; therefore, I am unable to join the majority in affirming the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________ Becker, Reed & Tilton and Dennis A. Becker, for appellee. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thomas L. Reitz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 225, 90 Ohio St. 3d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-marston-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack