Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 420

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 24, 1963·No. No. 37648·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is the contention of appellant that the order of the commission is unreasonable and should be reversed.

[422]*422The record contains conflicting 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.

Order affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Sherer, JJ., concur. Sherer, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Gibson, J.

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

Per Curiam.

It is the contention of appellant that the order of the commission is unreasonable and should be reversed.

[422]*422The record contains conflicting 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.

Order affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Sherer, JJ., concur. Sherer, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Gibson, J.

Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission, 174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 420 (Ohio 1963).

Pincite

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 420 (Pennsylvania Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.