Legal Opinion

Halliday v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1928No. 20768PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The motion of the railway company to dismiss may be treated as a demurrer, not only to the petition, bnt to the evidence adduced in its support. The applicant relied, for relief, on Section 527 and cognate sections of the General Code.

The railway company was asked to construct a switch track some 300 feet in length and to connect it with its main line, at an expe'nse to itself of about $1,200. The petitioner’s building, both at the time of filing the application and at the time of hearing, was still under construction. No business had been transacted upon the premises, nor any…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barber v. KriegOhio Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Lynn v. Laundry Workers International UnionOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
  3. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Whelen Springs Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API