Legal Opinion

Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1992No. 91-1761PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtReece, J.

The scope of review applicable to these proceedings is set forth in R.C. 4903.13 which states, in part:

“A final order made by the public utilities commission shall be reversed, vacated, or modified by the supreme court on appeal, if, upon consideration of the record, such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable.”

In contrast to determinations of fact which are accorded considerable deference, questions of law are examined by this court de novo. Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 108, 110, 12 O.O.3d 115, 116, 388 N.E.2d 1370, 1372-1373.

While…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Coalition for Safe Electric Power v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Guman Bros. FarmOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Graham v. Drydock Coal Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. HackerOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Long Beach Ass'n v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. FarmOhio Supreme Court · 1995

92 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