Mason v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStern, J.
Appellant raises four propositions of law herein, the first being that the requisite degree of proof should be less exacting for an application to operate as a motor transportation company, on call to the public over irregular routes, for the transportation of household goods, office furniture and fixtures than where authority to transport general freight is sought. Appellant bases his proposition upon the inherent difficulty in obtaining evidence to show a need and deficiency for this type of transportation, and upon the highly specialized nature of transportation necessary to serve and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Canton-East Liverpool Coach Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- N.Y. C. Rd. Co. v. P. U. C.Ohio Supreme Court · 1931
- A. & T. Motor Freight, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Bray v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
3Cited by7 opinions
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Matlack, Inc. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'NSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
- Harold D. Miller, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- Doc Goodrich & Son, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.