Westhoven v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This case under the above title comes into this court upon a petition in error from the Public Utilities Commission, where several eases were consolidated.
Without attempting to analyze the motives which impelled action by the various complainants before the Commission, or to reconcile the conflict which exists in the evidence as to various issues which are not essential to the decision of this case, it is sufficient to say that the evidence is undisputed that prior to the 28th day of April, 1923, Carl J. Westhoven entered into a partnership with Florence Westhoven, Luella Westhoven, and Louis…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Matz v. J. L. Curtis Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
- Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Effenberger v. MarconnitNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- Gilmer v. Public Utilities CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1926
- Estabrook v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.