Legal Opinion
New York Central Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1930No. 21981PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The plaintiff in error contends that the order of the commission is unlawful and unreasonable for the following reasons:
“1. The commission was without jurisdiction to hear and determine said complaint, for the following reasons:
“(a) The complainant was without standing and the complaint was unauthorized.
“(b) The complaint presented no issue for the determination of the commission.
“(c) If any issue was presented, it was legal or judicial in character.
“2. Defendant railroad company did not violate the motor transportation law.
“3. That the order was void in that it required the respondent to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Packard v. BantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Sprout v. South BendSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- N.Y. C. Rd. Co. v. P. U. C.Ohio Supreme Court · 1931
- H. & K. Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- State & Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- Baldwin v. State Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
- State and R. R. W. H. Comm. v. R.I. M. T. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.