Toledo Terminal Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Terminal Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1962

DocketNo. 37284

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251 (Toledo Terminal 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

Toledo Terminal Rd. v. Public Utilities Commission, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the order of the commission is unreasonable, unlawful, an abuse of discretion and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The record contains conflicting testimony and 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.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the order of the commission is unreasonable, unlawful, an abuse of discretion and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The record contains conflicting testimony and 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.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-terminal-rd-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1962.