Legal Opinion
Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 23, 1926No. 20040PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The question of change in the service permitted to be made by the Ohio Transit Company between Lancaster and Pomeroy is considered in the case of Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, post, 383, 154 N. E., 323, this day decided. The present opinion and judgment relate only to the branch of the service permitted to be operated by the Ohio Transit Company between Columbus and Lancaster.
The Public Utilities Commission authorized the Ohio Transit Company to change its time and tariff schedules, and to add equipment, between Columbus and Lancaster, permitting it to put on new…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McLain v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- J. A. Wigmore Co. v. ChapmanOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Trac. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Public Service Commission v. ByronCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
- Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1937
- N.Y. C. Rd. Co. v. P. U. C.Ohio Supreme Court · 1931
- Tri-City Motor Transportation Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
- Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.