Legal Opinion

City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1981No. 80-1340PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

The threshold issue before this court is whether the street-lighting service is a “new service” within the purview of R. C. 4909.18. That section, in relevant part, provides:

“Any public utility desiring to establish any rate, joint rate, toll, classification, charge, or rental, or to modify, amend, change, increase, or reduce any existing rate, joint rate, toll, classification, charge, or rental, or any regulation or practice affecting the saíne, shall file a written application with the public utilities commission. ***If the commission determines that such application is not for an increase…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Georgia Power Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  3. City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Sellers v. Iowa Power and Light CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1974
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Armco, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Weiss v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

11 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