Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Oklahoma Cotton Ginners' Ass'n v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 17, 1935No. 26638Published

1Dissent 1

On Rehearing.

2Dissent · GibsonGibson, J.

I cannot agree with the opinion of the majority of my associates. Cotton gins maintained and operated for the purpose of ginning seed cotton of i he general public are public utilities. Sess. Laws 1915, chapter 176, § 1, amended by Sess. Laws 1929, chapter 240, § 1 (section 3676- O. S. 1931). As such they are subject to the jurisdiction of the State Corpor-poration Commission. Sess. Laws 1915, chapter 176, § 2 amended by Sess. Laws 1923, chapter 191, § 1, amended by Sess. Laws 1929. chapter 240 § 2 (section 3677, O. S. 1931).

Section 5, chapter 176, Sess. Laws 1915 (section 3681,…

3Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Phillips v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon BoroughSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  4. Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API