In re G & B Anderson, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- McLain v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989