Legal Opinion

City Transp. Co. v. Pharr

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1948PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Neil

On October 22, 1946, the State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission granted the Tri-State Coach Corporation a certificate of convenience and necessity to operate motor buses from a point approximately two and one half miles from the city limits of Kingsport to the corporate limits of said city, and thence over certain designated streets, with closed doors, to the Union Bus Terminal, and from there to the plant of the Tennessee-Eastman Corporation, which is partially within the corporate limits of Kingsport.

The City Transportation Company, Inc., entered a protest and later filed a petition…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Malone v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
  3. O'Brien v. AmermanTexas Supreme Court · 1922
  4. People v. RaimsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1895
  5. Sales v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1902

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Maloney v. SierraNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Patterson v. City of ChattanoogaTennessee Supreme Court · 1951
  3. City of Chattanooga v. FanburgTennessee Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Walworth County v. City of ElkhornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Schlientz v. City of North PlatteNebraska Supreme Court · 1961

6 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