Legal Opinion
Cannon Ball Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 1, 1925No. 19327PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.
ISiince March 17, 1924, the Cannon Ball Transportation Company has been operating a motor transportation service under certificate of convenience and necessity No. 633, granted by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, over a regular route, a part of which extends from the city of Ironton, Ohio, to the Ohio river, in the direction of Huntington, W. Va. That company is complying with all the requirements of the Public Utilities Commission and rendering satisfactory service. Over the protest of the Cannon Ball Transportation Company, the Public Utilities Commission granted the application of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Buck v. KuykendallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. CaplanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- New York Central Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- Holly v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- Motor Transport & Truck Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Northern Kentucky Transportation Co. v. City of BellevueCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.