Legal Opinion

Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1996No. 95-572PublishedCited by 1,815 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants pose three propositions of law, arguing that the Miller Act prevents Grafton from terminating Ohio Edison’s service to Design and Rite Aid without commission approval For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Miller Act does not prevent Grafton from forcing Ohio Edison to abandon the Design and Rite Aid electric lines.

In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must show that (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. City of Canton v. WhitmanOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Klapp v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by1,815 opinions

  1. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Doe v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. NajarOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Nilavar v. OsbornOhio Court of Appeals · 1998

1,810 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