City of Dayton v. Public Utilities Commission
Decision Date | 28 December 1962 |
Docket Number | Nos. 37110-37112,s. 37110-37112 |
Citation | 174 Ohio St. 160,187 N.E.2d 150 |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Parties | , 21 O.O.2d 427 CITY OF DAYTON, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee. The DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee (Two cases.) |
Herbert S. Beane, City Atty., Robert J. White, Steer, Strauss & Adair and James J. Ryan, Cincinnati, for the city of Dayton.
Julian De Bruyn Kops, J.R. Newlin, Dayton, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John Lansdale, Jr., and Alan P. Buchmann, Cleveland, for The Dayton Power & Light Company.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., Andrew R. Sarisky and Herbert T. Maher, Columbus, for appellee, Public Utilities Commission.
Is the annual rate of return of 5.4 per cent allowed by a majority of the Public Utilities Commission unreasonable or unlawful as contended by both the city and the company, each, of course, for different reasons?
The city still insists that the ordinance rate of 3.6 per cent is reasonable and lawful while the company wants a minimum rate of 6.3 per cent per annum.
The majority of the commission rendered the following ultimate findings:
A study of the record and briefs discloses 39 assignments of error, 7,000 pages of evidence taken during 57 days of hearing, 384 pages of briefs, and 40 pages of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions by members of the Public Utilities Commission.
On result of the study of this mass of material is that the court finds no respect in which the order of the commission is unlawful. The principles of law involved have been discussed and applied by this court in numerous cases.
The remaining question is whether the order is unreasonable as contended by both the city and the company.
To reach this conclusion it would be necessary for the court to base its finding on irreconcilably conflicting opinion testimony of expert witnesses couched in terms understandable chiefly to each witness alone and amounting to no more than a sheer guess. The members of this court are neither accountants nor engineers, and manifestly it would be unfair to the litigants and to the commission for the court to pretend that it is in a position to better evaluate the evidence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.
...T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 150, 555 N.E.2d 288; Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 160, 21 O.O.2d 427, 187 N.E.2d 150. Being supported by the record, the commission's determination to preserve the integrity of the ......
-
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
...evidence and determine the difficult question of the reasonableness of the order than is the commission.' Dayton v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 160, 162, 187 N.E.2d 150, 151. Our task is not to set rates; it is only to assure that the rates are not unlawful or unreasonable, and th......
-
Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities Com'n of Ohio
...and to assume powers which this court is not suited to exercise." As was suggested in Dayton v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 160, 162, 21 O.O.2d 427, 428, 187 N.E.2d 150, 151: "[t]he members of this court are neither accountants nor engineers, and manifestly it would be unfair to t......
-
City of Akron v. Public Utilities Commission
...directed. In the decisions which appear consecutively in 174 Ohio State Reports, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier affirmance of the Dayton case, in which the commission had followed the previous decisions of the court, and it reversed the commission in General Telephone Co. v. Pub. Ut......