State ex rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 250, 82 Ohio St. 3d 254

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 24, 1998

Docket1995-2315

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 250 (State ex rel. Thompson 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. Thompson v. Indus. Comm., 1998 Ohio 250, 82 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 254.]

THE STATE EX REL. THOMPSON, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-250.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 95-2315—Submitted May 12, 1998—Decided June 24, 1998.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD10-1580. __________________ Shapiro, Kendis & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Rachel B. Jaffy and James D. Kendis, for appellee and cross-appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sandra L. Nimrick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant and cross-appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ. COOK, J., concurs 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 82 Ohio St.3d 254.]

THE STATE EX REL. THOMPSON, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-250.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 95-2315—Submitted May 12, 1998—Decided June 24, 1998.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD10-1580. __________________ Shapiro, Kendis & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Rachel B. Jaffy and James D. Kendis, for appellee and cross-appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sandra L. Nimrick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant and cross-appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ. COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 250, 82 Ohio St. 3d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-thompson-v-indus-comm-ohio-1998.