Legal Opinion

City of Columbus v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1984No. 83-608PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants contest two aspects of the rate increase granted by the commission. First, appellants challenge the commission’s calculation of the working capital allowance included in the rate base. Second, appellants dispute the commission’s allowance of a curtailment adjustment to the rates charged for vertical services, message tolls, and private line services. We will address the issues in the order presented above.

I

When fixing rates, R.C. 4909.15(A)(1) requires the commission to determine the valuation of property used in the rendition of services by a public utility. Included in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. In re Application of Champaign Wind, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Payphone Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API