Legal Opinion

Columbus-Cincinnati Trucking Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1943No. 29338PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

While there may have been some irregularity in the signing of the contracts between Hazeiton and the theatre companies seeking his service, this was later corrected by action of the boards of directors of the shippers before the commission made its order and no prejudice was suffered by any one on account of this irregularity. It is not claimed and cannot be claimed that the contracts, as they now stand, are not valid to all intents and purpose. Jenkins Steamship Co. v. Preston, 186 F., 609.

The next complaint of the protestants is that through the course of conduct of Hazeiton in taking on…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hissem v. GuranOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Bray v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Jenkins S. S. Co. v. PrestonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
  4. Crompton v. SpencerSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1897
  5. Goodman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re G & B Anderson, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Fischbach v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Petrasek v. TC3 Operations, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Hazelton v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API