Legal Opinion

City of Akron v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1978No. 77-613PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Per curiam

A commission finding will not be disturbed unless manifestly against the weight of the evidence and so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty. Ford Motor Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 142, 152.

*157Appellants assert in their first proposition of law that the commission erred in setting a rate of return of 9.07 percent based solely upon a stipulation between Ohio Edison and the commission staff. Appellants assert further that the only witness at the hearing mentioning this 9.07 percent rate of return specifically refused…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Cremean v. Public Utilities CommisionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. General Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. City of Reading v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002

26 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