Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Wear v. Cincinnati & Lake Erie Rd.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1934No. 24308PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBevis, J.

As the parties stand here in the same positions as they stood below, they will be referred to respectively as relator and respondent.

Upon the case before us three principal points are presented for decision:

1. May the city of Springfield maintain an action to oust the respondent from the streets without first having applied to the Public Utilities Commission for authority to have the railway property abandoned and the railway service discontinued.

2. May a state court make an order which must result in the discontinuance of the respondent company’s service while such company is engaged in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Harkin v. BrundageSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Helm v. ZarecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Empire Trust Co. v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1916
  4. East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Lake Shore Electric Ry. Co. v. State Ex Rel. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. People Ex Rel. Boole v. Northwestern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

2 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