Legal Opinion

D. G. & U. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 1953No. Nos. 32784 and 33089Published

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

It is the contention of counsel for the Public Utilities Commission that these appeals are not properly before the court for the reason that the applications for rehearing do not comply with Section 543, General Code, which requires that “such application shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds *571on which th applicant considers said decision or order to be unreasonable or unlawful. ’ ’ The decision of this court in the case of City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission, 151 Ohio St., 353, 86 N. E. (2d), 10 is cited in support of such position. In that case it clearly appears…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Canton-East Liverpool Coach Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  3. A. & T. Motor Freight, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Highway, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Modern Motor Express, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API