Legal Opinion

AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 2000No. Nos. 98-28 and 98-30PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

The complaint case proceedings before the commission that are the subject of this appeal involved the legality and reasonableness of Ameritech’s intrastate “switched access charges.” Access charges are charges that long distance telephone companies (also called “Interexchange Carriers” or “IXCs”) pay to local service telephone companies (also called “Local Exchange Carriers” or “LECs”) for the use of their local network facilities to originate and terminate long distance (“interexchange”) calls. The access charge system was an outgrowth of the divestiture of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
  2. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. McGuire v. Ameritech Services, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2003
  5. AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002

19 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