State ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 121, 91 Ohio St. 3d 574

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 2001

Docket2000-2190

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 121 (State ex rel. Mead Corp. 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. Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 121, 91 Ohio St. 3d 574 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 574.]

THE STATE EX REL. MEAD CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.; HARRIS, APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-121.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-2190—Submitted April 24, 2001—Decided June 6, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1434. __________________ {¶ 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. DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. __________________ DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the order of the Industrial Commission. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Thompson & Hine, L.L.P., and Robert W. Myers, for appellee. Livorno & Arnett Co., L.P.A., and John F. Livorno, 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 91 Ohio St.3d 574.]

THE STATE EX REL. MEAD CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.; HARRIS, APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-121.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-2190—Submitted April 24, 2001—Decided June 6, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1434. __________________ {¶ 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. DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. __________________ DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the order of the Industrial Commission. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Thompson & Hine, L.L.P., and Robert W. Myers, for appellee. Livorno & Arnett Co., L.P.A., and John F. Livorno, for appellant. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 121, 91 Ohio St. 3d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mead-corp-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack