Blue Motor Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Blue Motor Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

1 N.E.2d 613, 131 Ohio St. 66, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 66, 5 Ohio Op. 371, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 338

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 22, 1936

Docket25867

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 N.E.2d 613 (Blue Motor Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blue Motor Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 1 N.E.2d 613, 131 Ohio St. 66, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 66, 5 Ohio Op. 371, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 338 (Ohio 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and was argued by counsel.

Plaintiff in error was the holder of an irregular intrastate certificate from and to Cincinnati, Ohio, and *67 in addition thereto an interstate certificate over a regular route between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York.

The Public Utilities Commission, after citations and hearings, found plaintiff in error had violated laws of the state of Ohio and the rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission by transporting property in intrastate commerce from and to points other than Cincinnati; had operated over regular routes from Cincinnati, and through institution of pick-up and delivery service had solicited business for its irregular operation; had, while using emergency equipment within Ohio, failed, neglected and omitted to make accurate reports of such use and to pay the requisite taxes therefor; had intermingled both intrastate and interstate freight on one vehicle for transportation, thereby confusing the two operations; and had made permanent substitutions of motor transportation equipment without having made application therefor to the Public Utilities Commission. The commission revoked the intrastate certificate held by the plaintiff in error.

On consideration whereof, this court finding that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is not unlawful or unreasonable, it is ordered and adjudged that the order of the Public Utilities Commission be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. Scheible v. Hogan, 113 Ohio St., 83, 148 N. E., 581; Solt v. Public Utilities Commission, 114 Ohio St., 283, 150 N. E., 28; Miami Valley Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 117 Ohio St., 311, 158 N. E., 591; Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc., v. Public Utilities Commission, 126 Ohio St., 317, 185 N. E., 194; Mahoning Express Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 128 Ohio St., 369, 191 N. E., 368.

Order affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

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

This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and was argued by counsel.

Plaintiff in error was the holder of an irregular intrastate certificate from and to Cincinnati, Ohio, and *67 in addition thereto an interstate certificate over a regular route between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York.

The Public Utilities Commission, after citations and hearings, found plaintiff in error had violated laws of the state of Ohio and the rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission by transporting property in intrastate commerce from and to points other than Cincinnati; had operated over regular routes from Cincinnati, and through institution of pick-up and delivery service had solicited business for its irregular operation; had, while using emergency equipment within Ohio, failed, neglected and omitted to make accurate reports of such use and to pay the requisite taxes therefor; had intermingled both intrastate and interstate freight on one vehicle for transportation, thereby confusing the two operations; and had made permanent substitutions of motor transportation equipment without having made application therefor to the Public Utilities Commission. The commission revoked the intrastate certificate held by the plaintiff in error.

On consideration whereof, this court finding that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is not unlawful or unreasonable, it is ordered and adjudged that the order of the Public Utilities Commission be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. Scheible v. Hogan, 113 Ohio St., 83, 148 N. E., 581; Solt v. Public Utilities Commission, 114 Ohio St., 283, 150 N. E., 28; Miami Valley Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 117 Ohio St., 311, 158 N. E., 591; Midwestern Motor Transit, Inc., v. Public Utilities Commission, 126 Ohio St., 317, 185 N. E., 194; Mahoning Express Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 128 Ohio St., 369, 191 N. E., 368.

Order affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.E.2d 613, 131 Ohio St. 66, 131 Ohio St. (N.S.) 66, 5 Ohio Op. 371, 1936 Ohio LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-motor-transportation-co-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack