Legal Opinion
Red Ball Transit Co. v. Marshall
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided October 19, 1925No. 382PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
Complainant, upon its amended complaint, asks injunctive relief against the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, its agents, attorneys, and representatives, and all persons acting for and in combination with them, or any of them, from instituting or carrying on any criminal prosecution against complainant or complainant’s agents while in the transaction of complainant’s business, under the pretense that complainant or its agents is violating the Motor Transportation Act of the state of Ohio. The immediate remedy asked was the' issuance of a preliminary injunction by this court as constituted.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Buck v. KuykendallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Borough of New HopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Medigen of Kentucky, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of West VirginiaDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1991
- Cobb v. Department of Public Works of WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1932
- Arneson v. DennyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1928
- Cannonball Transp. Co. v. American Stages, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1931
- Grolbert v. Board of Railroad Com'rs of IowaDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.