Case ID: ohio-st-3d_55/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "H. Brown, J., Douglas, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Appellee, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellants.
    [Cite as State, ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 55 Ohio St. 3d 601.]
    (No. 88-2038
    Submitted July 31, 1990
    Decided October 24, 1990.)
    
      Seeley, Savidge & Aussem and Thomas M. Carolin, for appellee.
    
      Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Cheryl J. Nester, for appellant Industrial Commission.
    
      Victor H. Hahn, for appellant John Bednar.
    
      Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Stewart R. Jaffy, urging reversal for amici curiae, the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, the Ohio AFL-CIO, and the United Auto Workers.
   On motion for rehearing. Rehearing denied.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.

Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent.

H. Brown, J.,

concurring. I join the majority in denying the request for rehearing by appellant John Bednar and his supporting amici. Appellant was granted the relief he sought by this court’s judgment, and thus has no standing to move for a rehearing. The amici, of course, have no more standing to move for rehearing than they do to file a notice of appeal.

Having said that, I would observe that the law as announced in paragraph one of the syllabus is (in my opinion) dictum. The issue considered in syllabus one was addressed, perhaps mistakenly when viewed in retrospect, because counsel for the Industrial Commission and counsel for the amici sought a ruling on the issue in their briefs and in their oral arguments.

Re snick, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. In my judgment, rehearing should be granted and a new opinion should issue eliminating any discussion or holding with regard to issues not properly before us. Accordingly, I adhere to the views expressed in my concurring and dissenting opinion, following the majority’s original decision. See State, ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 52 Ohio St. 3d 144, 150-152, 556 N.E. 2d 467, 473-474.

Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.