Legal Opinion
Tongren v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 24, 1999No. Nos. 97-740 and 97-1294PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
The commission, as a creature of statute, has and can exercise only the authority conferred upon it by the General Assembly. Columbus S. Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 535, 620 N.E.2d 835; Pike Natural Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 181, 22 O.O.3d 410, 429 N.E.2d 444; Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio *89St.2d 153, 21 O.O.3d 96, 423 N.E.2d 820; and Dayton Communications Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 302, 18 O.O.3d 478, 414 N.E.2d 1051.
R.C. 4903.09 states:
“In all contested cases heard by the public utilities…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Migden-Ostrander v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- In re Application of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.