Legal Opinion
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 9, 1987No. 86-861PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Per curiam
The scope of our review of PUCO orders is set forth in R.C. 4903.13, which states 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 record, such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable. * * *”
Under the “unlawful or unreasonable” standard specified in R.C. 4903.13, we will not reverse or modify a PUCO decision as to questions of fact where the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show that the PUCO’s determination is not against…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Armco, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- General Motors Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Elyria Foundry Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Allnet Communications Services, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.