Vernon v. Warner Amex Cable Communications, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants contend that a legislative body cannot declare *119something to be a “public utility” which clearly is not. In support of this position, appellants rely on Greater Fremont, Inc. v. Fremont (N.D. Ohio 1968), 302 F. Supp. 652, 665, where it was stated in dictum that a CATV was not a public utility. Appellants essentially argue that R.C. 5727.01, 4905.02 and 4905.03 provide statutory definitions of what is a public utility, and that a CATV is not included in any of these definitions. Appellants further submit that Sections 3 and 7, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, more popularly…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Southern Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Greater Fremont, Inc. v. City of FremontDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1968
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Watson Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
- Montville Bd. of Twp. Trustees v. Wdbn, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- DiBella v. Village of OntarioRichland County Court of Common Pleas · 1965
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of St. Marys v. Auglaize County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Marano v. GibbsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- In re Complaint of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Castle Aviation, Inc. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Dublin v. State, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.