Sections 4903.02 to 4903.16 and 4903.20 to 4903.23 of the Revised Code shall apply to any proceeding or order of the power siting board under Chapter 4906. of the Revised Code, in the same manner as if the board were the public utilities commission under such sections.
In re Application of Buckeye Wind, L.L.C., 2012 Ohio 878 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 6דThe Board’s Order Should Be Affirmed A. The Board’s Order Followed Statutory Requirements {¶ 26} The board has exclusive jurisdiction over construction of wind farms such as the one proposed by Buckeye.”
In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 2013 Ohio 5478 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 2דStandard of review {¶ 10} Pursuant to R.C. 4906.12, we apply the same standard of review to power-siting determinations that we apply to orders of the Public Utilities Commission.”
In re Application of Champaign Wind, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1513 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2דThis lowered the total number of turbines for the project to 52. {¶ 6} After the board denied motions for rehearing, both the neighbors and the county appealed to this court, raising 13 propositions of law between them.”
Biglin v. S (In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L. L.C.), 124 N.E.3d 787 (Ohio 2018). “We will not reverse or modify a board's order as to questions of fact when the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show that the order was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension,…”
In re Application of Middletown Coke Co., 2010 Ohio 5725 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 4ד{¶ 13} The city of Monroe sought rehearing, which the siting board denied on March 23, 2009.”
State ex rel. Ohio Edison Co. v. Parrott, 654 N.E.2d 106 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 2דConsistent with this comprehensive scheme, we have exclusive jurisdiction to suspend or delay implementation of an order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, of which the Power Siting Board forms a part: “No court other than the supreme court shall have power to review,…”
In re Application of Am. Transm. Sys., Inc., 2010 Ohio 1841 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 4ד{¶ 16} On November 24, 2008, the board issued its opinion and order authorizing the preferred, cross-country route (with 43 additional conditions proposed by the board’s staff).”
In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 5206 (Ohio 2018). “We will not reverse or modify a board’s order as to questions of fact when the record contains sufficient probative evidence 2 Although not part of the record on appeal in the present case, the parties recognize and refer to the fact that after appellants commenced this appeal,…”
In re Letter of Notification Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 2024 Ohio 4747 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2דSTANDARD OF REVIEW {¶ 13} Under R.C. 4906.12, we apply the same standard of review to determinations of the Power Siting Board that we apply to orders of the Public Utilities Commission.”
In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3301 (Ohio 2021). “3d 173 , ¶ 10, citing R.C. 4906.12. Under this standard, we will reverse, vacate, or modify a board order “if, upon consideration of the record, [we are] of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable.”
Gallo Displays, Inc. v. Cleveland Pub. Power, 618 N.E.2d 190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3ד12 and O.R.C. § 4906.12.” Appellants argue the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
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.