State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.

2001 Ohio 114, 91 Ohio St. 3d 568

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 2001

Docket2000-1688

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 114 (State ex rel. Smith 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. Smith v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 114, 91 Ohio St. 3d 568 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 568.]

THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-114.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1688—Submitted April 24, 2001—Decided June 6, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-955. __________________ {¶ 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 adopt the decision of the magistrate. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ John Anthony Bull, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________

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 568.]

THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm., 2001-Ohio-114.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1688—Submitted April 24, 2001—Decided June 6, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-955. __________________ {¶ 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 adopt the decision of the magistrate. RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ John Anthony Bull, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 114, 91 Ohio St. 3d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-smith-v-indus-comm-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack