General Motors Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.
The appellant propounds three propositions of law for this court’s consideration. They state, in substance:
' (1) The Public Utilities Commission failed, in its opinion and order of September 16, 1974, to make essential *63findings of fact supported hy the record or reasons derived from the record and stated only ultimate conclusions of law;(2) The findings of the Public Utilities Commission are manifestly against the weight of the evidence and are clearly unsupported by it so as to show misapprehension, mistake or willful disregard of duty;(3) The reference by the Public Utilities Commission to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- General Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Globe Metallurgical Division of Interlake, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by25 opinions
- Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1979
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. State Corporation CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1979
- At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.