The public utilities commission is hereby vested with the power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate public utilities and railroads, to require all public utilities to furnish their products and render all services exacted by the commission or by law, and to promulgate and enforce all orders relating to the protection, welfare, and safety of railroad employees and the traveling public, including the apportionment between railroads and the state and its political subdivisions of the cost of constructing protective devices at railroad grade crossings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Saint Torrance v. Firstar, 529 F. Supp. 2d 836 (S.D. Ohio 2007).
Saint Torrance v. Firstar, 529 F. Supp. 2d 836 (S.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 2ד26 provides in pertinent part, Upon complaint in wilting against any public utility by any person, ..., that any rate, ..., charge, ..., or service, .”
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 593 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1992). “The plain language of this enactment does not suggest that it is somehow optional. The commission cannot defeat the General Assembly’s demand for quasi-judicial proceedings merely by supplying a different label to the attempted modification.”
In re Comm. Rev. of the Capacity Charges of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1607, 60 N.E.3d 1221. · cites it 2דThe commission therefore determined that it could rely on R.C. 4905.04, 4905.05, and 4905.06 to approve a cost-based charge, because the transaction is appropriately characterized as an intrastate wholesale transaction.”
In re Complaint of Wingo v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5583, 169 N.E.3d 617. · cites it 2ד” See R.C. 4905.04. But in the decision below, the PUCO did not look to the statutory scheme to determine whether the submeterer is a public utility; instead, it applied a jurisdictional test of its own devising.”
GTE North, Inc. v. Zaino, 96 Ohio St. 3d 9 (2002). “R.C. 4905.04 includes both local exchange telephone companies and interexchange telecommunications companies among those subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission.”
GTE North, Inc. v. Zaino, 2002-Ohio-2984, 96 Ohio St. 3d 9. “R.C. 4905.04 includes both local exchange telephone companies and interexchange telecommunications companies among those subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission.”
In re Ohio Power Co., 40 N.E.3d 1060 (Ohio 2015). “The commission’s “ongoing supervision and jurisdiction” does not allow it to violate other statutory provisions {¶ 31} The commission also found that its “ongoing supervision and jurisdiction” over the rate phase-in allowed it to modify the ESP Order.”
Hull v. Columbia Gas, 850 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio 2006). “, R.C. 4905.04, 4905.06, 4905.22, 4905.231 and 4905.”
Vernon v. Warner Amex Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 495 N.E.2d 374 (Ohio 1986). “Chapter 4905, and specifically R.C. 4905.04, gives the Public Utilities Commission the authority to supervise and regulate public utilities.”
Haning v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 712 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 3ד02, which are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the commission under R.C. 4905.04 and Title 49. With four stated exceptions, R.”
Haning v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 712 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1999). “02, which are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the commission under R.C. 4905.04 and Title 49. With four stated exceptions, R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.