Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentDouglas, J.
I respectfully dissent. R.C. 4907.47 requires the PUCO to consider specific factors with regard to each individual public railroad-highway grade crossing when the commission is determining whether the installation of protective devices should be ordered. R.C. 4907.47 also gives the commission broad discretion in determining how the costs of installing and maintaining crossing protective devices should be apportioned.
In the case before us, the commission studied the crossing in question and found,- among other pertinent facts, that vehicular use of the crossing is relatively light while an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- City of Columbus v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ohio Utilities Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.