City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
Since the original schedules were filed, as stated in the order of the Commission, it conducted an extensive hearing continuing over a number of sessions. The record is very lengthy, consisting of a large number of exhibits and testimony of various witnesses, including expert engineers employed by the city and tbe telephone company. The Commission had the benefit of its own inspection of the utility plant, as well as of the inspection made and testimony given by its own engineers. Before the final order was made, the Commission had before it the experiences and operations of the telephone…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- City of Marietta v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. WhitcombDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
- Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.