Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Appellants primarily contend that Norfolk & Western’s cost analysis constituted uncontroverted *98evidence that the nine percent increase would not cover the actual cost of service and that the commission acted unlawfully in refusing to accept that evidence as proof that the rate was reasonable.

The commission is given broad discretion in determining the weight to be given to evidence before it. See Boyle-Midway v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 11; Armco Steel Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1968), 16 Ohio St. 2d 144; Ohio Coal Assn. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1955), 164 Ohio St. 108.

Given the…