Legal Opinion

Alspaugh v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1946No. 30491PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

The removal of the restriction sought by the applicant would constitute him a common carrier over a regular route. It is well settled that to establish the right to such certificate it is incumbent upon the applicant to show the public convenience and necessity for the proposed service, the inadequacy of existing transportation facilities or service, and that the applicant is a person of the character and responsibility to whom such certificate should be issued.

The general question here is whether, from a consideration of the entire record before the Public Utilities Commission, its decision…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Scheible v. HoganOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Miami Valley Transit Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Minerva-Canton Transit Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Solt v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Donahue v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961
  2. Kuhn v. North Dakota Public Service CommissionNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Werlin Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Alers v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1961
  5. D. G. & U. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of OhioOhio Supreme Court · 1965

6 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