State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 535, 84 Ohio St. 3d 254

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1998

Docket1997-1613

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 535 (State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. 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. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm., 1998 Ohio 535, 84 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 254.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] ON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-535.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-1613—Submitted October 27, 1998—Decided December 30, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD07-908. __________________ Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.P.A., George H. Rosin and Grant M. Yoakum, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Brian & Brian and Richard F. Brian, for appellee Michelle K. Berns. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the basis that the landfill operation does not qualify as “construction.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent. RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

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 84 Ohio St.3d 254.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] ON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-535.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-1613—Submitted October 27, 1998—Decided December 30, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD07-908. __________________ Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.P.A., George H. Rosin and Grant M. Yoakum, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Brian & Brian and Richard F. Brian, for appellee Michelle K. Berns. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the basis that the landfill operation does not qualify as “construction.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent. RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 535, 84 Ohio St. 3d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-on-environmental-serv-v-indus-comm-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack