Legal Opinion

New Par v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 2002No. 2001-1132PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal as of right. The appellants are New Par, f.k.a. AirTouch Cellular, n.k.a. Verizon, and a number of other entities that have done business as cellular telephone service providers. The appellees are the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“commission”) and intervenor Westside Cellular, Inc., which does business as Cellnet.

{¶ 2} Cellnet is a cellular telephone service reseller. As such, it purchases cellular service on a wholesale basis, rebrands the service, and markets it to the general public on a retail basis. On October 18,1993, Cellnet…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Westside Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon WirelessOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Cincinnati SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. New Par v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ohio Feather CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API