Legal Opinion

Ohio Power Co. v. Deist

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1951No. 32116PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMiddleton, J.

The specific question now before this court is: Does The Ohio Power Company have the right under the statutes, particularly Section 9192-1, General Code, and under the facts presented in the record, to appropriate a right of way for the purpose of constructing thereon a belt conveyor to transport coal from plaintiff’s coal field to its generating station, a distance of approximately four miles?

The decision of this case requires a construction of Sections 9192-1 and 11046, General Code, and their application to the facts and circumstances established by the evidence.

Section 9192-1, General…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. Wilton v. County St. JohnsSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  4. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. v. StrickleyUtah Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Davis v. Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. BradfordSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1962
  2. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. v. TeterOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. Smith v. GilbraithOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Seadade Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  5. Lamb v. Armco, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1986

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