Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 9, 1980No. Nos. 79-1158 and 79-1173Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLocher, J.
Today’s decision, regarding advertising expenses and charitable contributions, is a step forward in the regulation of public utilities in order that they operate for the direct and primary benefit of consumers. I have filed dissenting opinions in numerous public utility cases before this court. See, e.g., Duff Truck Line v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 4, 9; Franklin Co. Welfare Rights Org. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 1, 16; Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 155, 162; Cincinnati v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 168, 177; Columbus v. Pub.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Franklin County Welfare Rights Organization v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.