Legal Opinion
Duff v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1978No. Nos. 77-919, 77-927, 77-943 and 77-954PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
■Per Curiam.'
I. (Case No. 77-919.)
The first appeal is presented by H. Thompson Duff. Appellant Duff basically advances three arguments, the first of which is that the commission abused its discretion by not including all elements of depreciation in its valuation of UTC’s property.2 Specifically, he alleges that obsolescence was ignored as a depreciating factor, which, according to R. C. 4909.05(E), must be included in the depreciation calculation. The problem arises because the different classes of depreciation were not detailed by the commission in its staff report. There is testimony in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Akron v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Ohio Committee of the Central Station Electrical Protection Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Worthington Hills Civic Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Armco, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.