Legal Opinion

Trac. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1926No. Nos. 19598 and 19599PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

These two cases were heard together. Razzo and Sutton were denied a certificate of convenience and necessity over the portion of the route applied for located between Struthers and Youngstown on the south side of the Mahoning river. The traffic of the Municipal Railway Company, south of the river, was therefore not affected by the order of the commission. Furthermore, the Municipal Railway Company operates entirely within municipal limits which are subject to municipal regulation.

The protest of the East End Traction Company, however, presents another phase. That line runs from the city of…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Public Service Commission v. ByronCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  3. Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Tri-City Motor Transportation Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927

4 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