Legal Opinion

West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 1934No. 24104 and 24105PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

The Gas Company complains generally that the Commission, in its process of fixing the rate herein, has not followed the procedural requirements, and has thereby denied to it due process of law, and that the rate fixéd by the Commission is unreasonable and unlawful.

We will consider the specific questions raised in the Lima case in inverse order.

The valuation fixed by the Commission on September 15, 1931, for property used and useful in the city of Lima, as of a date certain, to wit, March 31, 1928, the effective date of the rate ordinance passed by the city, was in the amount of $1,901,696.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Consolidated Gas Co. of New York v. NewtonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1920
  4. Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. State v. Lone Star Gas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  4. City of El Paso v. Pub. Utility Com'n of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
  5. East Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938

6 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