Legal Opinion

Orose v. Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1937No. 26425PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The ordinance upon which plaintiff’s cause of action is predicted is lengthy and need not be recited in.full. It applies to “public vehicles” within which term are included “taxicabs,” “autos for hire,” “driverless autos for hire,” and “funeral cars.” Section 65-lb, Ordinance No. 50-1929. A “driverless auto for hire” is one let for hire to a person who operates it'himself for his own use. (Section 65-le.) Section 65-3 provides for applications for license for public vehicles. The basic section in the instant case is 65-7, which reads:

“No license to operate any public vehicle shall be issued…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hanley v. DonoghueSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Neff Lumber Co. v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  5. Western Life Indemnity Co. of Ill. v. RuppSupreme Court of the United States · 1914

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Hooper v. GoldsteinSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
  2. Gulla v. StrausOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Life of the Land v. CITY COUNCIL, ETC.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Weldon v. Zoning Bd. of City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  5. Village of Strongsville v. McPheeOhio Supreme Court · 1944

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

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

Powered by the Exa API