Legal Opinion

Lindsey v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1924No. 18082PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The errors assigned by the plaintiffs in error may be epitomized thus:

1. The commission did not make a detailed valuation as provided in Section 499-9 of the General Code.

2. The commission availed itself of the services of its employes in investigating and determining values, operating expenses, and revenues.

This action grew out of a protest filed under favor of Section 614-20, General Code (108 O. L., pt. 2, 1094), by individual patrons of the Pomeroy Middleport Telephone Company against a new schedule filed by the company with the Public Utilities Commission. A hearing was had and evidence…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wadell v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
  2. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  4. City of Marietta v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  5. City of Bucyrus v. State Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1929

13 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