Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati ex rel. Bettman v. Interurban Railway & Terminal Co.

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Decided April 25, 1913Published

1Opinion of the CourtNippert, J.

The plaintiff in this case, the city of Cincinnati, through its solicitor, has brought this action for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from charging passengers on their cars any rate of fare in excess of that provided in the ordinance passed by the council of the village of Pleasant Ridge on the 19th day of November, 1901, by which ordinance a certain grant and franchise was created, which provided "that should the village of Pleasant Ridge be annexed to the city of Cincinnati, the rate of fare charged for a ride in either direction between any point in said village and the.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Fellows v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. ShumanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
  4. State v. Sioux City & Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1878
  5. City of Benton Harbor v. St. Joseph & Benton Harbor Street Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

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

Powered by the Exa API