Legal Opinion
Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 3, 1993No. 92-1773PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
R.C. 4903.13 governs our review of PUCO orders. It provides in pertinent part:
“A final order made by the public utilities commission shall be reversed, vacated, or modified by the supreme court on appeal, if, upon consideration of the *537record, such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable. * * * »
In MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 266, 268-269, 527 N.E.2d 777, 780, we interpreted this standard of review:
“Under the ‘unlawful or unreasonable’ standard specified in R.C. 4903.13, this court will not reverse or modify a PUCO…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Time Warner AxS v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Tongren v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Lucas County Commissioners v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.