Legal Opinion
City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 9, 1980No. Nos. 79-1158 and 79-1173PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtS We ene Y, J.
Appellants present this court with basically eight alleged errors committed by the commission in reaching its order granting CEI’s rate increase. We will proceed to ascertain the reasonableness and lawfulness of the instant order, keeping in mind our often stated scope of review under R. C. 4903.13. See, e.g., Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 108, 110.
I
Both the city and Senior Citizens contend that the commission erred in allowing CEI’s $306 million investment in the Davis-Besse nuclear generating plant to be included in the rate base. Appellants initially assert…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co. v. Iowa State Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
- Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.