St. Louis & S. F. R. v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Atchison, T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State ex rel

    138 P. 1026 (Okla. 1914)   Cited 7 times

    " See, also, St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. State et al., 28 Okla. 802, 115 P. 874; A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State et al., 28 Okla. 805, 115 P. 875. From the record in this case it clearly appears that the Commission is simply determining the character of crossings to be maintained, and that the same is made for the convenience and safety of the public traveling the said streets of the city of Guthrie in crossing the tracks of the plaintiff in error and not for the protection or safety of the persons or property transported by such public carrier.

  2. St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Miller

    123 P. 1047 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 11 times

    The order entered by the Corporation Commission upon said complaint was held not to be appealable to this court. In St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. State et al., 28 Okla. 802, 115 P. 874, the syllabus is as follows: "Where the only question presented for review on appeal by a railway company from an order of the Corporation Commission is whether the Commission committed error in ordering the railway company to open up an alleged public highway across the railway company's line of railway by constructing a crossing at the intersection of the highway and the railway, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

  3. Cooper et al. v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co.

    121 P. 654 (Okla. 1912)

    The same must be sustained. In support of the conclusion to which we have come, see A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State of Oklahoma and J. R. Dean, 28 Okla. 797, 115 P. 872; St. Louis San Francisco R. Co. v. State et al., 28 Okla. 802, 115 P. 874; A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 28 Okla. 12, 115 P. 1101; Atchison, T. S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 28 Okla. 465, 114 P. 722; A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 27 Okla. 329, 117 P. 328; St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. State et al., 24 Okla. 805, 105 P. 351; A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State et al., 24 Okla. 807, 105 P. 352; A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State et al., 28 Okla. 805, 115 P. 875. It therefore follows that the motion to dismiss is sustained.