Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We affirm the commission’s order for the following reasons.
In its first proposition of law, OCC argues that the commission was without authority to adopt the alternative regulatory requirements on its own initiative, citing the language of R.C. 4927.04(B), which provides that alternative regulations may be established “[u]pon the application of any telephone company having fewer than fifteen thousand access lines.” (Emphasis added.) In its second proposition of law, OCC argues that because the commission lacked authority to adopt alternative regulatory requirements on its own initiative, the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Cleveland Gear Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- Franchise Tax Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- In re Complaint of Pilkington N. Am., Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.