Legal Opinion

City of Canton v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1980No. Nos. 79-1032 and 79-1033PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

The principal issue presented for resolution is whether the dedicated facilities method used by the *79commission to allocate rate base property and expenses to Kaiser and Ormet was reasonable and lawful. R. C. 4903.13. Appellants argue that the dedicated facilities or direct assignment approach to allocating rate base property and expenses to Kaiser and Ormet is unreasonable, as this approach is justified only where the property allocated to the ratepayer is exclusively used by that ratepayer. Furthermore, appellants challenge this allocation procedure on the basis that it fails to allocate…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Ideal Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Motor Service Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Toledo v. Perry's Landing, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Porter v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992

6 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