Mason v. Public Utilities Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1995
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 123 Ohio St. 127 - Canton-East Liverpool Coach Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · 123 Ohio St. 370 - N.Y. C. Rd. Co. v. P. U. C. · 125 Ohio St. 617 - A. & T. Motor Freight, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission · 139 Ohio St. 409 - Bray v. Public Utilities Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a fundamental principle that in the matter of the regulation of motor transportation carriers the purpose of motor transportation legislation is to secure to the public necessary and convenient common carrier service over the highways * * * and that * * * certificates are issued for the benefit of the public rather than for the benefit of the recipients of the certificates. Anticipated benefits to the applicant or possible detriment to other certificate holders are only incidental and secondary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Irrespective of the nature of shipping contemplated by the applicant, the degree of proof required for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity, under existing statutes of the Motor Transportation Act, as interpreted by the courts, is the same, and must be universally applied and enforced by the Public Utilities Commission in determining whether a certificate shall issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A 'necessity' for motor transportation service as contemplated by the motor transportation act is not synonymous with a 'convenience,' but is a definite need of the general public for a transportation service where no reasonably adequate service exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.