Legal Opinion

City of Toledo v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1939No. 27315PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Adhering’ to former pronouncements, this court in the first paragraph of the syllabus in Village of New Bremen v. Public Utilities Commission, 103 Ohio St., 23, 132 N. E., 162, declared: “The Public Utilities Commission is an administrative board and has only such authority as the statute creating it has conferred.”

Section 501-2, General Code, so far as applicable in this controversy, reads:

“No railroad as defined in Section 501 of the General Code, operating any railroad in the state of Ohio, and no public utility as defined in Section 611-2® of the General Code furnishing…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. State ex rel. Davis v. HildebrantOhio Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Hansen v. State Personnel Board of ReviewOhio Court of Appeals · 1977

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API