Legal Opinion
At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 30, 1990No. 89-903PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Per curiam
AT&T and MCI first argue that GTE did not place the CCLC in issue because GTE did not apply to increase it and, furthermore, that the CCLC is not related to the rates which are the subject of the application. According to appellants, the commission could not have raised in issue the CCLC. We hold that the CCLC is related to the rates which are the subject of the instant application and that the commission could raise it.
In Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 403, 71 O.O. 2d 393, 330 N.E. 2d 1, paragraph six of the syllabus, we stated:
“When considering an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- General Motors Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Committee Against MRT v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.