Legal Opinion

Fayetteville Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1982No. 81-1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

This case involves the duty of a telephone company to provide adequate service and the sanctions that the commission may impose upon a company for failure to so provide service.

R.C. 4905.224 imposes upon public utilities the duty to “furnish necessary and adequate service.” The commission found that appellant was not providing adequate service;5 therefore, the commission’s next question was what sanction to impose for failure to furnish adequate service.6 The commission chose to impose the ultimate sanction: forfeiting the privilege of operating. The commission ordered appellant’s telephone…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Pike Natural Gas Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Silver Beehive Telephone Co. v. Public Service CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Harold D. Miller, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. In re Application of Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State ex rel. Fire Rock, Ltd. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  4. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API