Legal Opinion
Allen v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 30, 1988No. 87-1560PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
Appellants argue that by summarily dismissing their protests, the commission failed to take into consideration certain requirements of R.C. 4921.10 and, by implication, R.C. 4903.09. We disagree and affirm the order of the commission.
R.C. 4921.10 provides in part:
“Before granting any certificate the commission shall take into consideration other existing transportation facilities in the territory for which a certificate is sought. If it appears from the evidence that the service furnished by existing transportation facilities is reasonably adequate, the commission shall not grant such…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Canton v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.