State ex rel. Prayner v. Industrial Commission
The State, ex rel. Prayner v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The Industrial Commission has control over its orders until the actual institution of an appeal therefrom or until the expiration of the time for such an appeal. See Diltz v. Crouch, Dir. of Liquor Control, 173 Ohio St. 367 .
Judgment affirmed.
Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider, and Brown, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
- State ex rel. B & C MacHine Co. v. Industrial Commission
- State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Industrial Commission
- State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Environmental Board of Review
- Todd v. General Motors Corp.
- Palmer Bros. Concrete v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 13-07-16 (2-4-2008)
Most recent
- State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
- State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm.
- Palmer Bros. Concrete v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 13-07-16 (2-4-2008)
- State Ex. Rel. Columbus F.A.A. v. Dixon, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2005)
- Hand v. Bureau of Workers', Unpublished Decision (3-28-2003)
- Williams v. Truck Bus Div. of G.M.C., Unpublished Decision (11-9-2000)
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.