Concurrence Opinion
(concurring).
Judge ALLEN concurs in the order of the majority of the court insofar аs no restraining order is issued for the reason that it does not appear at this time that the plaintiffs will suffer any irreparable injury by reason of not issuing such restraining order.
Judge ALLEN dissents from the judgment of the majority of the court in dismissing the amended complaint of the plаintiffs for the reason that there is not a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in the courts of the State of Ohio.
On Reconsideration
This case came on to be heard upon the petition of plaintiffs filed March 1, 1954, petitioning the court to reconsider its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint entered February 19, 1954; to hear oral arguments upon said petition ; to set aside the order оf February 19, 1954; to find, conclude and adjudge that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ amended complaint; to deny dеfendants’ motion to strike certain allegations from the plаintiffs’ amended complaint and to issue an interlocutory injunctiоn to the plaintiffs, as prayed for in their amended complаint.
The petition-was submitted to the court upon the brief of cоunsel and affidavit signed by Edmund M. Brady;
Lead Opinion
This case came on to be heard upon the motion of the Attоrney General of Ohio, filed on behalf of the defendants to dismiss the within action on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter by virtue of Title 28, Section 1341, United States Code; to dismiss the action because the amended complaint fails to state a claim against defendants upon which relief cаn be granted and to strike certain allegations from the plaintiffs’ amended complaint: and upon a motion and application of the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction to bе effective pending the final determination of the matters.аt issue herein, restraining and enjoining defendants,from enforcing against the plaintiffs the provisions of Sections 5728.01 to 5728.14 inclusive, Revised Code of Ohio, - insofar as the provisions thereof relate оr purport to relate to the vehicles- used and operated by plaintiffs in Interstate Commerce under the jurisdiction of thе Interstate Commerce Commission upon and over the highways оf the State of Ohio.
The motions were submitted to the court upоn briefs and oral arguments of counsel;
On consideration wherеof, the majority of the court finds that a plain, speedy 'and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of the State of Ohio.
It is, thеrefore, ordered that the motion of the Attorney Generаl filed on behalf of the defendants to dismiss for the reason that thе court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter be, and it herеby is sustained and that the amended complaint of the plaintiffs bе and is hereby dismissed.
The majority of the court having arrived at the conclusion that the amended complaint should be dismissed, considers that other motions and parts of motions to which reference is made above, present no questions for determination.