Legal Opinion
In Re Appeal of Beasley Bros.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided June 26, 1928PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMorling, J.
The objections filed with the commission are:
“1. That there is no' necessity or demand for the service proposed by applicant. 2. That.the granting of the certificate will not promote the public convenience and necessity. 3. Thai the bus line now operated between said towns and cities furnishes adequate service of that character. 4. That, if the proposed service is instituted, the public convenience will be seriously affected, in that the amount of business will not support the operation of such service.”
In view of our conclusions upon the law, it will be sufficient to set out the evidence…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Washington Ex Rel. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. FairchildSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- People Ex Rel. New York & Queens Gas Co. v. McCallNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- State ex rel. White v. BarkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- West Suburban Transportation Co. v. Chicago & West Towns Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1923
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Graham v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1966
- Dal Maso v. County Commrs.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
- Hodges v. Public Service CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1931
- DAL MASO v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
- Webster County Board of Supervisors v. FlatterySupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.