State ex rel. Mitchell v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Mitchell v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 42, 83 Ohio St. 3d 399

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1998

Docket1997-2635

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 42 (State ex rel. Mitchell 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. Mitchell v. Indus. Comm., 1998 Ohio 42, 83 Ohio St. 3d 399 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 399.]

THE STATE EX REL. MITCHELL, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-42.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-2635—Submitted August 19, 1998—Decided October 21, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD11-1554. __________________ Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Rachel B. Jaffy, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cecille Caluya Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________

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 399.]

THE STATE EX REL. MITCHELL, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-42.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-2635—Submitted August 19, 1998—Decided October 21, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD11-1554. __________________ Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Rachel B. Jaffy, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cecille Caluya Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 42, 83 Ohio St. 3d 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mitchell-v-indus-comm-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack