Legal Opinion

Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1990No. Nos. 87-2208 and 88-1282PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Ohio Bell contends the commission erred in finding that it provided Carpet Color with legally inadequate telephone service. We disagree and affirm the orders of the commission.

In the proceeding below, the burden rested upon Carpet Color to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the telephone service provided by Ohio Bell was inadequate. See, e.g., Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 49, 14 OBR 444, 471 N.E. 2d 475; Boyle-Midway v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 11, 54 O.O. 2d 154, 266 N.E. 2d 838, and the cases therein cited.

Ohio Bell…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Dolly Madison Leasing & Furniture Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Allen v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Atwood Resources, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Boyle-Midway v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1971

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Complaint of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API