Upon complaint in writing against any public utility by any person, firm, or corporation, or upon the initiative or complaint of the public utilities commission, that any rate, fare, charge, toll, rental, schedule, classification, or service, or any joint rate, fare, charge, toll, rental, schedule, classification, or service rendered, charged, demanded, exacted, or proposed to be rendered, charged, demanded, or exacted, is in any respect unjust, unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory, unjustly preferential, or in violation of law, or that any regulation, measurement, or practice affecting or relating to any service furnished by the public utility, or in connection with such service, is, or will be, in any respect unreasonable, unjust, insufficient, unjustly discriminatory, or unjustly preferential, or that any service is, or will be, inadequate or cannot be obtained, and, upon complaint of a public utility as to any matter affecting its own product or service, if it appears that reasonable grounds for complaint are stated, the commission shall fix a time for hearing and shall notify complainants and the public utility thereof. The notice shall be served not less than fifteen days before hearing and shall state the matters complained of. The commission may adjourn such hearing from time to time.
The parties to the complaint shall be entitled to be heard, represented by counsel, and to have process to enforce the attendance of witnesses.
This section does not apply to matters governed by Chapter 4913. of the Revised Code.
In re Comm. Rev. of the Capacity Charges of Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-1607, 60 N.E.3d 1221. · cites it 26ד{¶ 11} On rehearing, the commission clarified that it also had authority under R.C. 4905.26 to open the investigation in this case and to set the rate for capacity service.”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 527 N.E.2d 777 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 15דIn this case, MCI and the OCC argue that a hearing is required by virtue of R.C. 4905.26. R.C. 4905.26 states, in pertinent part: “Upon complaint in writing against any public utility by any person, firm, or corporation, or upon the initiative or complaint of the public…”
City of Parma v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 86 Ohio St. 3d 144 (1999). · cites it 14דOn June 18, 1997, the city of Parma filed with the commission a complaint against Ameriteeh as CO Administrator, asserting that the second phase of the 216 area code relief plan that split the city of Parma into two area codes was unjust and unreasonable in violation of R.C.…”
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 593 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 5דAs a prerequisite to such action, the commission was obliged to give notice and conduct a hearing in accordance with R.C. 4905.26. 1 MCI Telecommuni *148 cations Corp.”
Suleiman v. Ohio Edison Co., 764 N.E.2d 1098 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2001). · cites it 8דSuleiman acknowledges that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes pertaining to service and rates of a public utility; however, he maintains that the causes of action articulated in his complaint are based on common-law negligence. Ohio Edison, on the other hand, claims…”
Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 2009-Ohio-2524, 910 N.E.2d 1009. · cites it 6ד26 provides that PUCO shall hear complaints filed against public utilities alleging that “any rate, fare, charge, toll, rental, schedule, classification, or service, or any joint rate, fare, charge, toll, rental, schedule, classification, or service rendered, charged, demanded,…”
Disc. Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 112 Ohio St. 3d 360 (2007). · cites it 21דThe PUCO also made it clear that R.C. 4905.26 complaint proceedings remained available to address regulatory violations committed by cellular telephone service providers.”
Farra v. City of Dayton, 576 N.E.2d 807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989). · cites it 6ד” Farra relies on the trial court’s initial decision in this case and argues that he alleged the tort of damages to property and the negligent or reckless removal of permanent fixtures which did not fall under R.C. 4905.26 “complaints as to service.” Farra states that his…”
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 2011-Ohio-2720, 129 Ohio St. 3d 397. · cites it 2ד{¶ 17} On December 6, 2007, Sunoco filed a complaint with the commission against Toledo Edison under R.C. 4905.26. Sunoco challenged Toledo Edison’s refusal to extend the duration of the Sunoco Agreement to December 31, 2008.”
Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co., 573 N.E.2d 655 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 4ד26, in this regard, provides as follows: “Upon complaint in writing against any public utility by any person, firm, or corporation, or upon the initiative or complaint of the public utilities commission, that any rate, fare, charge, toll, rental, schedule, classification, or…”
In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg, 2012-Ohio-5270, 979 N.E.2d 1229. · cites it 4ד{¶ 3} Reynoldsburg filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission (“PUCO”) pursuant to R.C. 4905.26, contending that its ordinance superseded CSP’s tariff and that the tariff was unjust, unreasonable, and unlawful.”
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.