Legal Opinion
City of Marietta v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 25, 1947No. 30809PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Marietta complains that the valuation of the rate base in this case is excessive, unjust and unlawful ; that the exclusive use by the commission of the reproduction-cost-new-less-depreciation method in_ arriving at such valuation is unjust and unlawful; and that the allowance by the commission of a 6.5-per-cent rate of return on the rate base so found is also unjust and unlawful. The real basis of Marietta’s complaint seems to be that the commission in its finding failed to give due consideration and especial weight to the purchase price for which River obtained the property in question.
Mariet…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- 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
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Mississippi Public Service CommissionMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Public Service CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1966
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.