Case ID: ohio-st-3d_61/html/0719-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whirlpool Corporation, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
    [Cite as Whirlpool Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 719.]
    
      (No. 90-920
    Submitted February 20, 1991
    Decided August 27, 1991.)
    
      Robert M. Anspach Associates, Robert M. Anspach and David P. Strup, for appellant.
    
      Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, William M. Mattes and Jeffery W. Clark, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals, 1990 WL 34764, is affirmed on different grounds on the authority of Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 624, 576 N.E.2d 722, decided this date. Furthermore, we order the cause dismissed for failure to state grounds upon which relief can be granted given this court’s decision with respect to the constitutionality of R.C. 4121.80.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.