The director of the legislative service commission shall arrange with the proper officials of the Ohio state university, the Ohio history connection, the supreme court law library, and the Ohio state library, for the use of general books and references in their custody, and the proper officials of the Ohio state university, the Ohio history connection, and the Ohio state library are hereby directed to lend to the commission for the use of said commission such books and documents as the director may require. The director is also authorized to give or lend to the proper officials of the Ohio state university, the Ohio history connection, and the Ohio state library, any books and documents which are not required by the director.
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010-Ohio-1029, 125 Ohio St. 3d 280. · cites it 12ד, 6 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (2008), Section 103.03 (“the common-law liability of the employer cannot, under the almost unanimous rule, be stretched to include accidental injuries caused by the gross, wanton, wilful, deliberate, intentional, reckless, culpable, or…”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2010-Ohio-1027, 125 Ohio St. 3d 250. · cites it 8ד) 6 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (2008), Section 103.03. Furthermore, “Ohio is one of only eight states that have judicially adopted a ‘substantial certainty’ standard for employer intentional torts.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012-Ohio-5685, 983 N.E.2d 1253. · cites it 8ד) 6 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (2008), Section 103.03. (Footnote omitted.) Kaminski at ¶ 99-100.”
Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., 2018-Ohio-5088, 122 N.E.3d 1228. · cites it 4ד35(O) furthers the purposes of the workers’ compensation system by putting a project with a general contractor and multiple subcontractors on the same footing as a large construction project undertaken by a single contractor. By extending immunity to enrolled subcontractors, R.”
Moore v. ThorWorks Indus., Inc., 2024-Ohio-1617, 243 N.E.3d 655. · cites it 2דSee Houdek at ¶ 24 , quoting 6 Larson, Workers’ Compensation Law, Section 103.03, 103-7 to 103-8 (2001) (“an employer’s ‘knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist 28.”
Wright v. Mar-Bal, Inc., 2013-Ohio-5647. · cites it 2ד” See also 6 Larson, Law of Workers’ Compensation, Section 103.03, at 103-7 to 103-8 (2001) (explaining that an employer “knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist [and] knowingly ordering 7 employees to perform an extremely dangerous job * * * falls short of the…”
Bechtel v. Multi-Cast Corp., 2024-Ohio-3426, 252 N.E.3d 588. · cites it 2ד)’ 6 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (2008), Section 103.03. Houdek at ¶ 23 , citing Kaminski at ¶ 99-100.”
Schiemann v. Foti Contracting, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-269. · cites it 4דKaminski at ¶ 26; See also 6 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, Section 103.03, 103-7 to 103-8 (2001) (explaining that an employer’s “knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exists [and] knowingly ordering employees to perform an extremely dangerous job * * * falls…”
Meadows v. Air Craft Wheels, L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-269. · cites it 2ד“The common-law liability of the employer cannot, under the almost unanimous rule, be stretched to include accidental injuries caused by the gross, wanton, wilful, deliberate, intentional, reckless, culpable, or malicious negligence, breach of statute, or other misconduct of the…”
Est. of Mennett v. Stauffer Site Servs., L.L.C., 2020-Ohio-4355. · cites it 2ד{¶14} The Houdek court even cited with approval 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, Section 103.03, 103-7 to 103-8 (2001), which explained "that an employer's 'knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist [and] knowingly ordering employees to perform an extremely…”
Weitzel v. Bryson/Tucker Elec., L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-2577. · cites it 2ד, 2010-Ohio-1027, ¶ 100 , quoting 6 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (2008), Section 103.03. {¶ 53} As such, “an employer’s mere knowledge of a hazardous condition is insufficient to show intent to injure under R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.