State ex rel. Rodgers v. Indus. Comm.
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 223
Syllabus
The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that relator was not entitled to TTD compensation. Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that “not every piece of paper emanating from” an agency is “a binding rule,” especially where the language is more “informative” than “directive or mandatory” (citation omitted)
- noting that “not every piece of paper emanating from” an agency is a binding rule, particularly where the language is more “informative” than “directive or mandatory” (citation omitted)
- “The use of the word ‘should’ . . . detracts significantly from any claim that this guideline is more than merely precatory”
- “The use of the word ‘should’ . . . detracts significantly from any claim that this guideline is more than merely precatory.”
- “[U]se of the word ‘should’ . . . detracts significantly from any claim that this guideline is more than merely precatory.”
- “use of the word ‘should’ . . . detracts significantly from any claim that this guideline is more than merely precatory”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty Blunt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.