State ex rel. Taneff v. Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Taneff v. Columbus

2001 Ohio 1601, 93 Ohio St. 3d 500

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 31, 2001

Docket2001-0684

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 1601 (State ex rel. Taneff v. Columbus) 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. Taneff v. Columbus, 2001 Ohio 1601, 93 Ohio St. 3d 500 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 500.]

THE STATE EX REL. TANEFF, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Taneff v. Columbus, 2001-Ohio-1601.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-684—Submitted September 18, 2001—Decided October 31, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-782. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant. Janet Jackson, City Attorney, and Michael C. Matuska, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee city of Columbus. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Daniel M. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. __________________

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 93 Ohio St.3d 500.]

THE STATE EX REL. TANEFF, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Taneff v. Columbus, 2001-Ohio-1601.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 01-684—Submitted September 18, 2001—Decided October 31, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-782. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant. Janet Jackson, City Attorney, and Michael C. Matuska, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee city of Columbus. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Daniel M. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 1601, 93 Ohio St. 3d 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-taneff-v-columbus-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack