In re Appold

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the ultimate question in an intentional tort case is “ ‘what level of risk-exposure is so egregious as to constitute an “intentional wrong” ’ ”
• finding that the legislature clearly expressed its intent that former O.R.C. § 4121.80(H
• statutory change in common law definition of intentional tort was substantive change not to be applied retroactively
• statutory change in common law definition of intentional tort was substantive change not to be applied retroactively
• summary judgment granted because the employee-plaintiff failed to show the defendant possessed the requisite intent
• Workers Compensation Act “not intended to shield an employer from common-law liability for injuries he intentionally and maliciously inflicted upon his employees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).