State ex rel. Gibson v. Indus. Comm'n, 530 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Gibson v. Indus. Comm'n, 530 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Oliver, 2023-Ohio-1550, 214 N.E.3d 624
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
39 Ohio St. 3d at 320 A party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it here.2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • State v. Oliver, 2023-Ohio-1550, 214 N.E.3d 624.published 2 cites
    (A party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it here.)
  • State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu, 2014-Ohio-5330.published 2 cites
    Comm., 39 Ohio St.3d 319, 320 (1988); State ex rel.
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“a party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it here.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • State v. Oliver, 2023-Ohio-1550, 214 N.E.3d 624.published 2 cites
    “A party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it here.”
  • Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-942, 211 N.E.3d 746.published
    “a party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it here.”
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State, ex rel. Gibson
v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio
No. 87-634.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Nov 16, 1988.
Published opinion
530 N.E.2d 916
1988 Ohio LEXIS 368
Gallon, Kalniz & lorio Co., L.P.A., and William R. Menacher, for ap: pellant., Bugbee & Conkle, Warren Wolfe and Robert L. Solt III, for appellee Jeep Corporation., Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and James A. Barnes, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (2)
Per Curiam.

Appellant’s sole proposition before this court is that the commission’s assumption of jurisdiction over an issue that she did not intend to relitigate violated her right to due process of law. We hold that this issue was not raised previously, and therefore has been waived. See State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 120, 22 OBR 199, 489 N.E. 2d 277, syllabus; Blausey v. Stein (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 264, 15 O.O. 3d 268, 400 N.E. 2d 408; F. Enterprises v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 154, 1 O.O. 3d 90, 351 N.E. 2d 121.

Appellant unsuccessfully attempts to distinguish these and similar cases cited by appellees, contending that the case at bar, unlike those noted above, is a mandamus action. She argues that the present issue is before this court as if originally filed here, and thus her due process argument is not waived. However, in State, ex rel. Kay, v. Cleveland (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 37, 56 O.O. 2d 21, 271 N.E. 2d 784, an appeal from a denial of a writ of mandamus, we relied on a waiver theory in refusing to consider a newly proffered free-speech argument.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.