Allnet Communications Services, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
For the following reasons, we affirm the order of the commission.
In its first and second propositions of law, Allnet argues that Ohio Bell’s refusal to provide it one-plus dialing for intra-LATA toll calls and its failure to discount current access charges for such calls are unjust, unreasonable, and unjustly discriminatory under R.C. 4905.26, and in violation of R.C. 4905.32, 4905.33, and 4905.35. We disagree.
R.C. 4905.32 provides in part:
“No public utility shall charge, demand, exact, receive, or collect a different rate, rental, toll, or charge for any service rendered, or to be rendered,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- General Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Townships of Mahoning County v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by23 opinions
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Weiss v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Union Telephone Co. v. Wyoming Public Service CommissionWyoming Supreme Court · 1995
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.