Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Allen, J..
The complaint claimed, first, that the certificate of the Norwood Bus Company did not authorize it to drive more than two cars, nor to substantially increase seating capacity except upon application to the commission, and approval of the increase; and, second, that issuing notes and chattel mortgages without the consent of the commission constituted ground for the revocation of the certificate.
Is the motorbus company authorized under the statute upon its own motion, to increase thfe number of cars which it has in operation and to substantially increase seating capacity1? The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Motor Transit Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
3Cited by8 opinions
- Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- Columbus Motor Express, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Commercial Motor Freight, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.