Legal Opinion

Myers v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 1992No. 91-1044PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant raises three issues by this appeal:(1) Is the language of CSP’s tariff ambiguous, requiring appellant’s separately metered garage to be billed at the residential rate?(2) Does CSP apply its tariff in a discriminatory manner by making the residential rate available to a garage when it is served on the same meter as a house, but not when metered separately?(3) Do the procedural due process violations alleged by appellant require reversal of the commission’s order?

For the reasons which follow, we answer each question in the negative and affirm the commission’s order.

*301I

Appellant argues…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Gulf Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Townships of Mahoning County v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. In re Application of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Industrial Energy Users-Ohio v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API