Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

VILLAGE OF MARSHALLVILLE, APPELLANT v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE.

Public Utilities Commission — Railroad's application to discontinue trains dismissed — Commission dismissed subsequent application to require railroad to restore train operation — Latter order not "final order" in "special proceeding" — Section 12223-2, General Code — Appeal to Supreme Court dismissed.

BY THE COURT.

Counsel for the village by brief state: "The only legal question here involved is whether the commission's order of September 23, 1948, is a final order, and hence appealable."

Such counsel contend the commission on that date entered a "final order" in a "special proceeding" within the meaning of those terms as used in Section 12223-2, General Code.

We are of opinion that the Public Utilities Commission on May 25, 1948, entered a final order in a special proceeding, and find that no application for rehearing was filed within 30 days and no appeal was commenced within 60 days from that final order. The application filed on September 8 in that proceeding did not institute another "special proceeding," and, therefore, the order dismissing that application was not a final order in a "special proceeding."

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TURNER and TAFT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MARSHALLVILLE v. P.U.C
(Jul 13, 1949)