Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 10, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

82 Ohio St. 3d 88; 694 N.E.2d 459

Cases that cite this one

114 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Cunningham (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Lowe v. B. E. Liverpool City Sch. Dist., Unpublished Decision (9-8-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
In re Comm. Rev. of the Capacity Charges of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State v. Halfhill (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Mills (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Weinle (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Williams (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Kibler (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Wolfe (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Ramey (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Przybyla v. Przybyla (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. Corder (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State Ex. Rel. Columbus F.A.A. v. Dixon, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Euvrard v. Christ Hospital (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Russel v. Akron Department of Public Health (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Colt's Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
Cleveland v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State v. Owsley (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Case (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2023)
State v. Moore (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Ludwig (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Crawford (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Kimes (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Doughty (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Chester (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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:

“The basic principle of ripeness may be derived from the. conclusion that ‘judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real or present and imminent, not squandered on problems which are abstract or hypothetical or remote.’ * * * [T]he prerequisite of ripeness is a limitation on jurisdiction that is nevertheless basically optimistic as regards the prospects of a day in court: the time for judicial relief is simply not yet arrived, even though the alleged action of the defendant foretells legal injury to the plaintiff.” 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, 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.