Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Ohio Bell argues essentially that the commission’s findings of inadequate service are not supported by the record.
Ohio Bell argues correctly that the burden is upon the complainant to establish inadequate service in a proceeding under R.C. 4905.26. See, e.g., Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1966), 5 Ohio St. 2d 189, 190 [34 O.O.2d 347]. Specifically, Ohio Bell contends that the complainant’s burden of proof cannot be met unless it is established by expert testimony that Ohio Bell’s equipment or facilities were functioning improperly. There is no support for this contention. “Inadequate service”…
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
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- 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 by3 opinions
- Luntz Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Luntz Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990