Legal Opinion

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1988No. Nos. 87-1664 and 87-1837PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Three questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the appellant’s notice of appeal is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court to consider the merits of case No. 87-1664. A second, related question is whether the notice of appeal places the commission under a duty to transmit the documents underlying case No. 87-1664. The final question presented is whether Consolidated Rail’s complaint for a writ of mandamus in case No. 87-1837 should be denied as untimely.

For the reasons that follow, we find that the notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on this court, that the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Reichert v. IngersollOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1987

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. In re Complaint of Buckeye Energy Brokers v. Palmer Energy Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Luntz Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Luntz Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API