Legal Opinion

Miami Valley Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1927No. 20459PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

At the hearing before the commission, it was testified by F. J. Mayo that at that time he was using an 18-passenger car, although his then certificate authorized the use only of a 12-passenger car. It was admitted by Mayo that he had paid $90 tax for the year 1927 for this 18-passenger motor vehicle, this being the tax required under Section 614-94, General Code, for a 12-passenger car, and a greater tax, namely, $140, being required for an 18-passenger car. It was also admitted by Mayo that the schedule under which he was at this time operating was not the same schedule which had been…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Alspaugh v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Oyster v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Z., C. & W. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Columbus Motor Express, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Ohio Transport, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Robert L. Moulton, Chairman, Ralph A. Winter and Edward J. Kenealy, Commissioners)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1957

4 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