Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
It is well-settled that pursuant to R. C. 4901.13,3 the commission has the discretion to decide how, in light of its internal organization and docket considerations, it may best proceed to manage and expedite the orderly flow of its business, avoid undue delay and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort. Sanders Transfer, Inc., v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 21; Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 220.
A necessary concomitant of the commission’s authority to regulate the manner and mode of its hearings is its discretionary power to permit or deny…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Krupp v. PoorOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- Pierson v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1976
- Dworken v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Weiss v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- In re Application of Am. Transm. Sys., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
- Grogan v. T.W. Grogan Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001
- Weiss v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.