Legal Opinion
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1992No. 91-823PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
A
Stipulation
OCC contends that the evidence does not support the stipulation and that any stipulation not supported by substantial evidence is unlawful. The commission and CG & E maintain that sufficient evidence supports the stipulation and, consequently, the commission’s order.
In Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 155, 157, 9 O.O.3d 122, 123, 378 N.E.2d 480, 483, in which the city-appellants had stipulated to the staff-determined rate base but not the cost of capital or the rate of return, we stated:
“The commission, of course, is not bound to the terms of any stipulation;…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. ThornburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Duff v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Time Warner AxS v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- In Re Application Seeking Approval of Ohio Power Company's Proposal to Enter Into an Affiliate Power Purchase Agreement for Inclusion in the Power Purchase Agreement RiderOhio Supreme Court · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.