Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1961

DocketNo. 36558

StatusPublished

This text of 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413 (Pennsylvania Rd. 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

Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the commission’s order is contrary to the weight of the evidence, is not supported by sufficient evidence and is arbitrary, unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.

The commission determined the crossing in question to be dangerous and that flasher lights are necessary. The record contains evidence supporting the contentions of both parties. Ordinarily this court will not substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of the commission. It does not appear from an examination of the record that the order of the commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is otherwise unlawful or unreasonable. The order is, therefore, affirmed. New York Central Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 166 Ohio St., 113.

Order affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias and Bell, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., dissents. O’Neill, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the commission’s order is contrary to the weight of the evidence, is not supported by sufficient evidence and is arbitrary, unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.

The commission determined the crossing in question to be dangerous and that flasher lights are necessary. The record contains evidence supporting the contentions of both parties. Ordinarily this court will not substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of the commission. It does not appear from an examination of the record that the order of the commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is otherwise unlawful or unreasonable. The order is, therefore, affirmed. New York Central Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 166 Ohio St., 113.

Order affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias and Bell, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., dissents. O’Neill, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-rd-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1961.