Response or Comment
A disheartening recrudescence of procedural red-tape is found in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. A contest arose over the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to fix telephone rates in Cleveland. The Commission was engaged in a determination as to the reasonableness of a schedule of rates filed by the telephone company, when a petition was filed in the Common Pleas Court for an injunction against the charging of rates other than those fixed by a city ordinance. Believing that under the statute the Public Service Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of rates, and that the assertion of jurisdiction by the Common Pleas court was a usurpation, the telephone company applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to the Court of Common Pleas. The writ was denied on the ground that the case was not a proper one for its use. State ex rel. Cleveland Telephone Co. v. Court of Common Pleas, (Ohio, 1918). 120 N. E. 335.
Sunderland, Edson R. "The Writ of Prohibition—Procedural Delay." Mich. L. Rev. 17 (1918): 165-7.