Lindsey v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Wadell v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- City of Marietta v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- City of Bucyrus v. State Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1929
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.