Case Citator › State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission

State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
57 Ohio St. 3d 203
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
58 of 58
Citing cases (total)
58
Treatment dates
1992
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission remains generally binding, with the limited treatment listed below. All 58 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court of Ohio allowed an apparent clerical mistake in an order's evidence citation to be resolved by a cursory record review, while reaffirming the general requirement that the commission identify its evidence and explain its decision.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

58 later cases cite State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission; 58 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld an Industrial Commission order that named a nonexistent doctor's report because the mistake was apparent and a cursory review showed supporting evidence.

    State ex rel. Fresh Mark, Inc. v. Mihm · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    On this basis, the referee, citing State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, recommended the issuance of a limited writ "ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its orders awarding compensation for impairment of earning capacity and to issue new orders granting or denying such compensation, specifying therein the evidence relied upon and briefly explaining the reasoning for its decisions." The court of appeals adopted the referee's report and entered immediate judgment. ... Our decision today does not represent a departure from the general rule of Mitchell and its progeny. Rather, we emphasize that, in the case at bar, the commission's citations to the reports of Dr. Steiman were clearly mistakes (perhaps clerical errors) and that a mere cursory examination of the record supports the commission's orders granting Bowman benefits for impaired earning. On these facts, we uphold the commission's orders. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeals granting a limited writ is reversed, and the orders of the Industrial Commission are reinstated.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace