Legal Opinion
Parks v. Cleveland Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 17, 1931No. 22502PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.
The foundation of the claim of the relator in this case is that the rate established by the arbitrators is oppressive and unreasonable. Except for this claim, there would be no right, and the city would therefore be entitled to no remedy.
This is not an error proceeding to review the report of the arbitrators to determine whether the rate which they have agreed upon is reasonable and lawful; this court is not called upon to determine! whether a wrong conclusion was reached by the ar-i bitrators, but rather to determine whether the ques-, tion of the reasonable cost of the transportation':…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Field v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Commonwealth ex rel. McClain v. LockeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- City of Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- American Airlines, Inc., Trans World Airlines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Air BoardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959
- Cassidy v. Ohio Public Service Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1946
- Dressler v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1957
- Rosser v. HochwaltOhio Court of Appeals · 1967
- Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. City of Fort ThomasCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.