Legal Opinion

Franklin County Welfare Rights Organization v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1978No. Nos. 77-1083 and 77-1195PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I

Celebrezze, J.

In case No. 77-1083, appellant, F.C.W.R.O., presents several propositions of law, the first of which is an assertion that the commission “* * * acted unlawfully and unreasonably in ignoring the language and intent of R . C. 4909.152 concerning the adequacy of service * *

R. C. 4909.152 states, in pertinent part, as follows:

“In fixing the just, reasonable, and compensatory rates * * * to be * * * charged for service by any public utility, the * * * commission may consider the efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the facilities provided and the services rendered by the public…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Babbit v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

14 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