Legal Opinion
Montgomery County Board of Commissioners v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 30, 1986No. Nos. 86-26 and 86-651PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
Pursuant to its emergency powers under R.C. 4909.16, the PUCO created the PIP plan as a response to growing concern “about the number of residential gas * * * [and] electric customers unable to obtain service as a result of disconnection for nonpayment of bills because of the economic recession, increases in the cost of gas and electric service, and a decrease in the level of governmental assistance * * *.” PUCO No. 83-303-GE-COI, supra, at 1. The PUCO’s exercise of this emergency authority was appealed to this court in a number of cases.3 These appeals were summarily dismissed upon motion of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Good Samaritan Hospital of Dayton v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Dayton Communications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State v. S.R.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. DrosteOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Industrial Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Woodman v. City of LakewoodOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- In re Complaint of Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.