Haynes v. MacFarlane
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment enjoining the defendant from transporting property by autotruck for compensation between Fresno and Hanford and from performing any further services as a transportation company in the carriage of property for compensation between said termini until he shall have obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Railroad Com mission. The judgment also awarded the plaintiffs seven hundred dollars as damages suffered by them at the hands of the defendant.
The judgment was based on a stipulation of facts wherein, among other things, it was agreed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Motor Transit Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Frost v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Holmes v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sale v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Brignoli v. Seaboard Transportation Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Roddy v. Hill Packing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1943
- In Re BushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- People v. DuntleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.