B & D Delivery, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

The crux of appellant’s arguments is that the denial of appellant’s application after competitor objection was an abuse of discretion because appellant did *40show deficiencies in existing service, and that appellant was a “proper person” for the certificate it seeks.

In Jones v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 237, this court held that “it is incumbent upon a contract motor carrier who seeks permission to add a shipper to his list, to show a deficiency in the service of a subsisting and protesting common carrier.” Further, the court held, the “mere proof of an agreement between a contract…