From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Union Depot

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1953
160 Ohio St. 173 (Ohio 1953)

Opinion

No. 33680

Decided October 14, 1953.

Appeal — Final order — Order denying request for continuance — Not final appealable order.

APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.

Appellant filed with the Public Utilities Commission an application relative to the construction of a new union depot in Columbus and the discontinuance of the use of the present depot. Thereafter an application relative to the same subject matter was filed on behalf of the city of Columbus. These two applications were consolidated for the purpose of hearing and assigned for public hearing on a specified date. Appellant filed a request for a continuance of the hearing to a later named date.

The commission entered an order denying the request for a continuance. From that order appellant appeals to this court.

The cause is now before the court on a motion of the Public Utilities Commission to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Richard W. Gordon, city attorney, Mr. J. Raymond Snowden and Mr. Wayne S. Gerber, for appellee city of Columbus.

Mr. Emile Reiss, in propria persona. Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, Mr. James M. Burtch, Jr., and Mr. Everett H. Krueger, Jr., for appellee Public Utilities Commission.


The order of the commission from which this appeal is taken is not a final appealable order. The motion to dismiss is sustained.

Appeal dismissed.

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

MATTHIAS, J., not participating.


Summaries of

In re Union Depot

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1953
160 Ohio St. 173 (Ohio 1953)
Case details for

In re Union Depot

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW UNION DEPOT, COLUMBUS, OHIO, AND…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 14, 1953

Citations

160 Ohio St. 173 (Ohio 1953)
115 N.E.2d 4

Citing Cases

State v. Yee

Upon a review of Ohio law, however, we find that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance or stay…

H.R. v. P.J.E.

8 Ohio St.3d 472, 2006-Ohio-1503, 844 N.E.2d 825, ¶ 11 (grant of a motion for a stay is not a final,…