Luntz Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant poses eight propositions of law, nearly all of which ask us to reweigh the evidence of record. For the reasons that follow, we decline to do so and affirm the order of the commission below.1
We will not reverse a commission order unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. R.C. 4903.13. Nor will we reweigh evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the commission on factual questions where there is sufficient probative evidence in the record to show that the commission’s decision is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and is not so clearly unsupported…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Time Warner AxS v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Industrial Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Utility Service Partners, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- In re Complaints of Lycourt-Donovan v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- FirstEnergy Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.