State ex rel. Moskowitz v. Dickerson

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Moskowitz v. Dickerson

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 551

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 27, 1961

DocketNo. 37065

StatusPublished

This text of 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 551 (State ex rel. Moskowitz v. Dickerson) 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. Moskowitz v. Dickerson, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 551 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It appears from the record that the degree of hazard of the occupation and the risks of the different classes were used in fixing the rates of premiums assessed against the relators, that it was done in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, and that the assessments against relator are not illegal and the Court of Appeals so found. Therefore, the relators, not having suffered any loss from the application of rule VII, have no interest as to the validity of rule VII.

Where a relator has no beneficial interest in the allowance of a writ, the writ should be denied. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 417, Section 135; State, ex rel. Keppler, v. Houston, Judge, 172 Ohio St., 485.

Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering a writ to issue requiring the Industrial Commission to revise rule VTI is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

It appears from the record that the degree of hazard of the occupation and the risks of the different classes were used in fixing the rates of premiums assessed against the relators, that it was done in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, and that the assessments against relator are not illegal and the Court of Appeals so found. Therefore, the relators, not having suffered any loss from the application of rule VII, have no interest as to the validity of rule VII.

Where a relator has no beneficial interest in the allowance of a writ, the writ should be denied. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 417, Section 135; State, ex rel. Keppler, v. Houston, Judge, 172 Ohio St., 485.

Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering a writ to issue requiring the Industrial Commission to revise rule VTI is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-moskowitz-v-dickerson-ohio-1961.