Legal Opinion
Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 21, 1933No. 23864, 23867 and 23868PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The outstanding fact which must first be stated as underlying and conditioning every element involved in this controversy is as stated in the 1931 annual report of the Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation, that all of the properties involved in this case are “thoroughly integrated and interconnected, they constitute a single operating unit.”
With the exception of the qualifying shares, the Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation, which is the parent corporation of this group, holds the entire common stock of the United Fuel Gas Company. This company, a resident of West Virginia,…
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
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- City of Marietta v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.