Legal Opinion
Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 21, 1994No. Nos. 93-1050, 93-1453, 93-1515 and 93-1516PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Per curiam
For the following reasons, we affirm the orders of the commission.
*315I
STANDING
As a threshold matter, we must consider whether, having been denied intervention in the 1992 and 1993 cases, appellants have standing to appeal the commission’s orders authorizing Ohio Bell to offer the CLASS services. R.C. 4903.13 requires a person to have been a party in commission proceedings to appeal a commission order. See Communications Workers of Am. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 76, 11 O.O.3d 244, 387 N.E.2d 230, and Harrison v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1938), 134 Ohio St. 346, 12 O.O. 316, 16 N.E.2d 943.
A…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. CrawfordOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Migden-Ostrander v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Payphone Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- People of State of California v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Sparshott, Shan v. Feld Entrtnmnt IncCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.