Legal Opinion

Worthington Hills Civic Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1976No. 75-591PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

“Where, in a proceeding properly brought before it, the Public Utilities Commission fixes the rates or charges which may be collected by a public utility in furnishing its services or products to the users or consumers thereof, a presumption exists that such rates or charges are fair and reasonable, and a party who contends otherwise has the burden on appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 4903.13, Revised Code, of showing that they are unjust, unreasonable or unlawful.” Columbus v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1959), 170 Ohio St. 105, paragraph two of the syllabus.

The commission’s opinion and order…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Duff v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. City of Parma v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API