Legal Opinion

City of Cambridge v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1953No. 33178Published

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The city asserts that alleged needs of the company for increased rates to cover cost of increased wages, to provide proper maintenance of its plant and property, to cover operating expenses and taxes, and to provide funds to meet interest requirements and dividends on its preferred stock and reasonable dividends on its common stock do not constitute an emergency within the purview of Section 614-32, General Code, and that the motion to dismiss the application of the company for temporary increase of rates should have been sustained.

Section 614-32 reads as follows:

“The commission shall have…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Oklahoma Gas Elec. Co. v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. McAlester Gas & Coke Co. v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

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