Legal Opinion

Lucas County Commissioners v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1997No. 96-1539PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Moyer, C J.

In reviewing motions to dismiss brought under R.C. 4905.26, the commission has adopted the same standard used by courts in a civil case and deems all of the complainants’ factual allegations to be true. In re Toledo Premium, Yogurt v. Toledo Edison Co. (Sept. 17, 1992), case No. 91-1528-EL-CSS, cited in Cleveland Elec. Ilium. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 521, 524, 668 N.E.2d 889, 891. Moreover, in reviewing commission dismissals for failure to state a claim, we also assume the allegations of the complaint to be true. In this review, we therefore accept the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Time Warner AxS v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. In re Application of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Green Cove Resort I Owners' Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004

7 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