Legal Opinion
Payphone Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 2006No. 2004-2128PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
*454INTRODUCTION
{¶ 1} Appellant and cross-appellee, Payphone Association of Ohio (“PAO”), and cross-appellant and intervening appellee, SBC Ohio,1 appeal as of right from orders of appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) that establish rates charged by SBC Ohio to its competitors for pay-phone services. We conclude that the PUCO did not commit reversible error, we reject all claimed errors, and we affirm the orders.
BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 151 et seq., Title 47, U.S.Code (the “1996 Act”), which significantly restructured the telecommunications…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Weiss v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- In re Application of Champaign Wind, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.