Legal Opinion
Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 24, 2007No. Nos. 2005-2209, 2005-2368, 2005-2369, and 2005-2370PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
Background
{¶ 1} These are appeals as of right by appellants, Discount Cellular, Inc. (“Discount Cellular” or “Discount”), Richards Ltd., Inc., d.b.a. Advanced Cellular & Paging Services (“Advanced Cellular”), Intermessage Wireless Associates, Ltd. (“Intermessage Wireless”), and Jeff Rand Corporation, d.b.a. Wireless Outlet (‘Wireless Outlet”), from orders of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“commission” or “PUCO”) in case Nos. 04-236-RC-CSS, 05-190-RC-CSS, 05-811-RC-CSS, and 05-812-RC-CSS. Ameritech Mobile Communications, L.L.C., with Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership (“Ameritech”…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Clements v. FashingSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Menefee v. Queen City MetroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- In re Complaint of Pilkington N. Am., Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- In re Complaint of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.