Akron & Barberton Belt Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The practical effect of the order complained of is that each freight train operated by the appellant between Barberton and East Akron is required to have a caboose as a component part thereof and operated in connection therewith.
The major contention made by the appellant is that such order is unlawful for the reason that the Public Utilities Commission is without authority to make such order; that its action constitutes an attempt to exercise legislative power, and that the making of such order exceeds the supervisory and regulatory powers authorized by the Constitution to be conferred upon…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Terminal Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Belden v. Union Central Life Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- Matz v. J. L. Curtis Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
- Strain v. SouthertonOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- New York Central Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cleveland v. State (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- Redman v. Ohio Department of Industrial RelationsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Redman v. Ohio Dept. of Indus. RelationsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Trustees of Bazetta Township v. City of WarrenOhio Court of Appeals · 1975
- City of Cleveland v. State, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.