Legal Opinion · Dissent
City of Columbus v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 5, 1921No. 16562Published
Error to the Public Utilities Commission.
1DissentJones, J.
The judgment in this case is supported by a bare majority, who are unable to agree on a syllabus. An inspection of the opinions supporting it discloses a divergence among the three judges announcing their individual opinions. And it is not clear why the Ohio Constitutional Amendment of 1912 has been referred to, for it may be conceded that the validity of the contract in question, as stated by Johnson, J., is to “be determined by the law in existence at the time it was made.”
*142In the present case the judgment of the majority is based upon the fact that in 1899 a municipality had, by virtue of a…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Producers Transportation Co. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.