State ex rel. Target Auto Repair v. Morales (Slip Opinion)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Per Curiam
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Ohio
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the employer's writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the Industrial Commission's VSSR award to an injured worker, because the employer failed to timely object to the magistrate's decision and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion after the appeal was filed.
Excerpt
Workers' compensation—Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv)—Employer's petition for writ of mandamus reversing the Industrial Commission's award of additional compensation to an injured worker as a result of the employer's violation of a specific safety requirement was correctly denied by the appellate court when the employer failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's decision recommending the denial of the requested writ—Motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R.60(B)—Court of appeals was stripped of jurisdiction to rule on employer's motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) once employer filed notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio from the court of appeals' judgment denying the requested writ of mandamus—Judgment affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.
Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.