Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4905.37 (2026)

Commission may change rules and regulations of public utilities

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever the public utilities commission is of the opinion, after hearing had upon complaint or upon its own initiative or complaint, served as provided in section 4905.26 of the Revised Code, that the rules, regulations, measurements, or practices of any public utility with respect to its public service are unjust or unreasonable, or that the equipment or service of such public utility is inadequate, inefficient, improper, insufficient, or cannot be obtained, or that a telephone company refuses to extend its lines to serve inhabitants within the telephone company operating area, the commission shall determine the regulations, practices, and service to be installed, observed, used, and rendered, and shall fix and prescribe them by order to be served upon the public utility. After service of such order such public utility and all of its officers, agents, and official employees shall obey such order and do everything necessary or proper to carry it into effect. This section does not give the commission power to make any order requiring the performance of any act which is unjust, unreasonable, or in violation of any law of this state or the United States.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1975–2017 · leading case: Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 330 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 330 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1975). · cites it 2× “Section 4905.37).” In its opinion and order, the Commission stated that its “* * * staff is mandated by Section 4909.”
Corrigan v. Illum. Co. (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7555. “” Dispositive here is the Corrigans’ failure to allege—let alone show—that the company’s program conflicts with the rule.1 1 The Corrigans argue for the first time in their reply brief that the commission should have rejected the company’s definition of “incompatible vegetation”…”
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.