Cooper Bus Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
- Blair, Supt. of Bks v. Bd. of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1930)
- Harshman Dynasty, L.L.C. v. Mason (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Freeway Circle Properties, L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
- Audiovax Corp. v. Schindler, Unpublished Decision (5-6-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Hopkins v. INA Underwriters Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1987)
- State Bank of Downs v. Moss (Kan. 1969)
- Lakemore Plaza, Inc. v. Shoenterprise Corp. (Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas 1962)
- F. D. Cline Paving Co. v. Southland Speedways, Inc. (N.C. 1959)
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Woodbridge (Md. 1945)
- Koblegard Co. v. Maxwell (W. Va. 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
H. W. Collins was the owner of a certificate of convenience and necessity under which he operated a bus line between Chillicothe and McArthur, Ohio. An application was made by him to the Public Utilities Commission for authority to extend said bus line from Mc-Arthur to Athens, by way of Albany.
The Cooper Bus Company has for some time been operating a bus line from Athens to Albany, and made application for authority to extend its bus line from Albany to McArthur. These applications were heard together.
The Commission granted the application of Collins with a restriction against carrying passengers whose whole ride is between Athens and Albany, the route covered by the Cooper Bus Company’s certificate, and denied the application of the Cooper Bus Company for an extension of its line from Albany to McArthur.
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company protested both applications, but withdrew its protest against the Cooper Bus Company, and later abandoned its protest against Collins, no application for a rehearing having been filed or steps taken to perfect error proceedings by that company. This proceeding in error is prosecuted by the -Cooper Bus Company.
*703 In so far as the applicants, Collins and the Cooper Bus Company, sought to extend their respective routes so as to render service between McArthur and Albany, the granting of the one application and the refusal of the other was wholly a matter of discretion of the Public Utilities Commission, it appearing that each of the applicants is prepared to meet all requirements essential to the rendition of the proposed service. ' We are of the opinion, however, that the rule announced in the case of Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St., 92, should he applied, and that in cases such as presented the commission should not grant overlapping certificates.
The order of the commission is therefore modiled by so limiting the extension granted to Collins as to authorize him to operate said bus line only as far as Albany.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.