Ohio Central Telephone Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBevis, J.
The basic contention of the plaintiffs in error is that the commission was without jurisdiction or authority to make the orders in question. Some complaint is made that no evidence, beyond that contained in the companies ’ annual reports and in certain proposals filed by them, was formally received by the commission; but this contention' was not greatly insisted upon, and is not, in our opinion, of sufficient importance here to require further discussion.
The arguments of the plaintiffs in error may be summarized as follows:
The jurisdiction and power of the Public Utilities Commission are…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Monroe Gaslight & Fuel Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1923
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Lykins v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Com.California Supreme Court · 1950
- Elyria Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1953
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- State Ex Rel. Public Service Commission v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1938