Legal Opinion

State of Ohio, on the Relation of Paul T. Klapp, Prosecuting Attorney v. Dayton Power & Light Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided January 22, 1959No. 13516PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

In an action quo warranto originally filed in the state court the District Court, after removal and eventual hearing on the merits, gave judgment for defendant. 1 Defendant, and its predecessors, electric light and power companies, had operated in Piqua, Ohio, for nearly 50 years in accordance with an ordinance of the city. In this action the city sought to oust defendant from the streets and public places of the city and to force defendant to remove its poles and other equipment from such streets and public places upon or over the ground. A later stipulation joined in by the city excepts…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chase National Bank v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1922
  3. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1977
  4. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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