Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0668-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 860
    BENNETT BROS. v. PUB. UTIL. COMM.
    No. 19992.
    Supreme Court
    Petition in error.
    Dock. July 20, 1926;
    4 Abs. 510.
    973. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION— May the Commission, pursuant to a hearing on an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, where evidence is introduced of. public convenience and necessity, find as a matter of law that the applicant is not entitled to said certificate?
    Attorneys — E. J. Shover for Bennett Bros.; C. C. Crabbe and J. W. Bricker for Commission; all of Columbus.
   Bennett Brothers, a partnership, filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of public necessity and convenience over two routes. The certificate was granted for one of the routes and denied for the other on the theory that the commission has no jurisdiction over the operation of transportation lines through incorporated territory.

The decision was based on 112 OS. 699, the commission stating that there was no evidence to support a change in transportation facilities in said territory since the above case was denied.

Bennett Brothers in the Supreme Court contend:

1. That the case cited had no application to the circumstances under consideration.

2. That the commission did not consider the evidence produced and had no authority to make such a finding.