Legal Opinion

In re G & B Anderson, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1988No. 86-1811PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The first issue before us is whether the PUCO as a matter of policy must consider the adequacy of existing motor carrier service in determining whether to grant an application for a permit for contract carriage by a private motor carrier.

Anderson contends that the PUCO unlawfully refused to grant the requested permit even though Anderson’s application satisfied all the requirements set forth in R.C. 4923.07 for obtaining a contract motor carrier permit. Anderson argues that the PUCO has unlawfully added the requirement that Anderson must show *97the deficiency of available service provided by…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. McLain v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API