Legal Opinion
Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Ginsberg
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Decided May 9, 1934PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Dietzman
Granting temporary injunction.
Middlesboro is a city of tbe third class and has adopted the commission form of government. The defendants herein are its mayor and board of commissioners. For many years the plaintiff Kentucky Utilities Company has been furnishing light and power to the inhabitants of this city. In the case of City of Middlesboro v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 237 Ky. 523, 35 S. W. (2d) 877, it was determined that the Kentucky Utilities Company had no franchise to operate in the city of Middlesboro. By agreement, however, the judgment in that litigation,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Heald v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Campbell v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Louisville Home Telephone Co. v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Hilliard v. George G. Fetter L. & H. Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- City of Marion v. HaynesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Keigley v. Bench, City RecorderUtah Supreme Court · 1939
- City of Middlesboro v. Kentucky Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Utz v. City of NewportCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1952
- Carrico v. City of OwensboroCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1974
- Ginsberg, Mayor v. Ky. Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.