TIME WARNER AXS, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE.
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE.
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE.
Supreme Court of Ohio.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted December 13, 1995.
Decided March 5, 1996.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Emens, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Samuel C. Randazzo, Richard P. Rosenberry and Denise C. Clayton, for appellant Time Warner AxS.
Bell, Royer & Sanders Co., L.P.A., Judith B. Sanders and Barth E. Royer, for appellant MCI Telecommunications Corporation.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Sandra J. Anderson and Benita Kahn; and Larry Salustro, for appellant AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Duane W. Luckey, Ann E. Henkener, Thomas W. McNamee and Steven T. Nourse, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Kevin M. Sullivan and Mark I. Wallach; Michael T. Mulcahy and Jon F. Kelly, for intervening appellee Ameritech Ohio.
Robert S. Tongren, Consumers' Counsel, Barry Cohen, David C. Bergmann, Andrea M. Kelsey and Richard W. Pace, for intervening appellee Office of Consumers' Counsel.
Bruce J. Weston, for intervening appellee American Association of Retired Persons.
William M. Ondrey Gruber, Chief Assistant Director of Law, for intervening appellee city of Cleveland.
Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt and Gregory J. Dunn, for intervening appellee city of Columbus.
Kerry Bruce, for intervening appellee city of Toledo.
Ellis Jacobs, for intervening appellee Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition.
Joseph P. Meissner, for intervening appellees Greater Cleveland Welfare Rights Organization, Consumers' League of Ohio, and Western Reserve Alliance.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
MOYER, C.J.
Appellants propound a total of six propositions of law arguing that the commission abused its discretion when it adopted the partial stipulation and proposed alternative regulation plan. Each party also briefed the issue that we raised sua sponte: whether the commission exceeded its statutory authority particularly when it used non-traditional rate-setting methods under R.C. 4927.04(A) to set Ameritech's rates. The commission contends that appellants...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
