Legal Opinion

City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1982No. Nos. 81-1792 and 81-1817PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Ohio Adm. Code 4901: 1-18-04 provides, in part:

“(B) The company shall provide an optional uniform payment plan (budget plan) on an annual basis for any customer who is not in default on a previously agreed upon extended payment plan. Arrearages need not be included in the optional uniform payment plan (budget plan).”

Pursuant to the mandate established by the foregoing administrative rule, East Ohio has adopted a budget billing program for optional use by its residential customers. Under East Ohio’s budget billing program, residential space heating customers are given the option of paying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API