Portsmouth Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
162 N.E. 106, 119 Ohio St. 24, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 24, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 488, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 281
Opinions
It appearing that the judges of the court are equally divided in opinion as to the merits of this case (one of the judges not participating), and are unable for that reason to agree upon a judgment, and the entry of that fact constituting *25 an affirmance of the order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the order of said Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, stands affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Portsmouth Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 162 N.E. 106, 119 Ohio St. 24, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 24, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 488, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 281 (Ohio 1928).
162 N.E. 106 (Portsmouth Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.
212 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.
212 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids
223 U.S. 655 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des Moines
238 U.S. 153 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Galveston Electric Co. v. City of Galveston
258 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court, 1922)
City of Houston v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
259 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court, 1922)
Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission
262 U.S. 625 (Supreme Court, 1923)
McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co.
272 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Mars
278 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court, 1929)
Lindsey v. Public Utilities Commission
144 N.E. 729 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1924)
City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission
148 N.E. 817 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1925)
Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
162 N.E. 262 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1928)
State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri
262 U.S. 276 (Supreme Court, 1923)
City of Minneapolis v. Rand
285 F. 818 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)