Legal Opinion
Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-526PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
This appeal presents three issues for review. The first is whether the commission erred in disapproving appellant’s proposed post-test-year wage adjustment. The second is whether the commission properly denied recovery of the increased excise tax levy imposed by Am. S.B. No. 448. The third is whether the exclusion of the Killen expenditures pursuant to R.C. 4909.15(A)(4) amounts to the confiscation of appellant’s property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Before proceeding further, we note that “[t]he scope of this court’s review of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.