State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm.
Decision Date | 10 June 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 95-1501,95-1501 |
Citation | 82 Ohio St.3d 88,694 N.E.2d 459 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. ELYRIA FOUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Licata & Crosby Co., L.P.A., Elizabeth A. Crosby and Ellyn Tamulewicz, Cleveland, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey B. Duber, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A., James D. Kendis, Cleveland, and Rachel B. Jaffy, Columbus, for appellee Woolbright.
Appellees successfully argued below that mandamus was inappropriate. We affirm the denial of the writ, but do so for a reason other than that given by the court of appeals.
We find that the controversy presented by EFC's mandamus action lacks ripeness. Ripeness "is peculiarly a question of timing." Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (1974), 419 U.S. 102, 140, 95 S.Ct. 335, 357, 42 L.Ed.2d 320, 351. The ripeness doctrine is motivated in part by the desire "to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies * * *." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), 387 U.S. 136, 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681, 691. As one writer has observed:
Comment, Mootness and Ripeness: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1965), 65 Colum. L.Rev. 867, 876.
EFC is asking us to address the abstract and the hypothetical. The allowance of claimant's entire workers' compensation claim is in dispute, as are the medical conditions allegedly related to it. Therefore, EFC is effectively asking us to answer the question that, if the claim is allowed, and if it is allowed only for silicosis, is claimant entitled to temporary total disability compensation? This is an inappropriate question for review.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Delvallie
..." State v. Freer , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89392, 2008-Ohio-1257, 2008 WL 740571, ¶ 29, quoting State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm. , 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 89, 694 N.E.2d 459 (1998).{¶ 113} Like the defendant in McCann , supra, criminal defendants challenging the provisions of Reaga......
-
State v. Maddox
...and imminent, not squandered on problems which are abstract or hypothetical or remote." ’ " State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm. , 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 89, 694 N.E.2d 459 (1998), quoting Comment , Mootness and Ripeness: The Postman Always Rings Twice , 65 Colum.L.Rev. 867, 876 (196......
-
State v. Cochran
...concept of "ripeness for review:"The Ohio Supreme Court discussed the concept of ripeness for review in State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm., 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 1998-Ohio-366, 694 N.E.2d 459:Ripeness "is peculiarly a question of timing." Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (19......
-
State v. Wolfe
...concept of "ripeness for review":The Ohio Supreme Court discussed the concept of ripeness for review in State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm., 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 1998-Ohio-366, 694 N.E.2d 459:Ripeness "is peculiarly a question of timing." Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (19......