Legal Opinion
Armco, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1982No. Nos. 81-510 and 81-511PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Per curiam
“The scope of this court’s review of commission orders is set forth in R. C. 4903.13, which states in pertinent part:
“ ‘A final order made by the public utilities commission shall be reversed, vacated, or modified by the supreme court on appeal, if, upon consideration of the record, such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable.’
“ ‘Under the “unlawful or unreasonable” standard specified in R. C. 4903.13, this court will not reverse or modify an opinion and order of the Public Utilities Commission where the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Egan v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Cincinnati v. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County & Municipal EmployeesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.