Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 67

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 17, 1953·No. No. 33354·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Prom a consideration of all the evidence offered on behalf of the application, together with the facts that no evidence was offered in opposition to the application, and that no municipality or community which would be affected by a discontinuance of passenger train service made any protest or entered an appearance, this court is of the opinion that the order of the commission is unwarranted, unreasonable and unlawful.

The order of the commission is reversed.

Order reversed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taft, Matthias, Hart and Stewart, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Prom a consideration of all the evidence offered on behalf of the application, together with the facts that no evidence was offered in opposition to the application, and that no municipality or community which would be affected by a discontinuance of passenger train service made any protest or entered an appearance, this court is of the opinion that the order of the commission is unwarranted, unreasonable and unlawful.

The order of the commission is reversed.

Order reversed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taft, Matthias, Hart and Stewart, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., not participating.

Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 67 (Ohio 1953).

Pincite

160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 67 (Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.