Legal Opinion

Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-1004PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Per curiam

R.C. Chapter 4909 requires the commission to determine just and reasonable rates for services rendered by our state’s public utilities. Consumers’ Counsel raises questions of law and fact in this appeal from the commission’s order, claiming the rate increase allowed therein to be unlawful and unreasonable. We consider these claimed errors under our bifurcated standard of review well-stated by Justice Paul Brown:

“As to questions of fact, this court has repeatedly enunciated the rule that orders of the commission will not be reversed unless they are manifestly against the weight of the evidence…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Appeal of Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984

18 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