# State ex rel. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 18, 1992 · 63 Ohio St. 3d 277

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6764633

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 18, 1992
- **Citations:** 63 Ohio St. 3d 277; 586 N.E.2d 1077; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 397
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Resnick
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6764633

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “question of whether the commission had or did not have continuing jurisdiction . . . would be in the first instance for the commission to specifically determine”
- stating that a commission decision on the question of its continuing jurisdiction, being appealable pursuant to statute, may not be presented in mandamus to a court

## Opinion text

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. Much confusion exists regarding whether a decision made pursuant to R.C. 4123.52 is appealable pursuant to R.C. 4123.519. I write separately simply to crystallize the fact that a decision under R.C. 4123.52 does not involve the right to participate and therefore cannot be appealed under R.C. 4123.519. However, the problem arises in those cases where the Industrial Commission makes a determination pursuant to R.C. 4123.52 as to the statute of limitations question, and then immediately proceeds to find the claimant eligible to receive benefits. This type of decision warrants an appeal under R.C. 4123.-519 since it involves a right to participate. However, in those instances where a claim is determined to be time barred pursuant to R.C. 4123.52, an appeal under R.C. 4123.519 would not be proper. The proper remedy would be mandamus.
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the court of appeals’ decision in the grant of the writ as to the question of the resignation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6764633. Public record. Not legal advice.