Legal Opinion

Gilbert v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1936No. 25926PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Three main reasons are assigned by the appellants as to why the order of the Public Utilities Commission should be reversed:(1) The Springfield-Xenia Transportation Company is insolvent, and the order of the commission was therefore unreasonable and unlawful under authority of Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St., 80, 155 N. E., 694.(2) Absence of essential proof to establish public convenience and necessity for the proposed extension, in view of the existing transportation facilities in the territory.(3) Failure of the commission to give notice to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. N.Y. C. Rd. Co. v. P. U. C.Ohio Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. H. & K. Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. DunlapTennessee Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Corporation Commission v. Pacific Greyhound LinesArizona Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Commercial Motor Freight, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1941

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