Hall China Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 15 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1040,76-1040 |
| Citation | 50 Ohio St.2d 206,364 N.E.2d 852,4 O.O.3d 390 |
| Parties | , 4 O.O.3d 390 HALL CHINA COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Steer, Strauss, White & Tobias, Robert J. White, F. Bruce Abel, David F. Boehm and Jay J. Dudley, Cincinnati, for appellants.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Charles S. Rawlings and Samuel C. Randazzo, Columbus, for appellee.
James L. Fullin, Roger C. Post and Thomas J. Brown, Jr., Columbus, for intervening-appellee Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
An appeal from the Public Utilities Commission to the Supreme Court is predicated upon the finality of the order. In pertinent part, R.C. 4903.13 reads:
"A final order made by the Public Utilities Commission shall be reversed, vacated, or modified by the Supreme Court on appeal, if, upon consideration of the record, such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable."
R.C. 2505.02 defines "final order" as:
"An order affecting a substantial right in an action which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding * * *."
A proceeding before the commission is a special proceeding for the purpose of R.C. 2505.02. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Highway v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 634, 49 N.E.2d 759. Therefore, an order of the commission affecting a "substantial right" of a party is final and appealable pursuant to R.C. 4903.13. Thus, crucial to the propriety of this appeal is the determination whether a "substantial right" of Hall China has been affected by the commission's entry of July 14, 1976.
Hall China alleges that the July 14, 1976, entry of the commission effectuates, by its interpretation of R.C. 4905.302, the retroactive surcharge of August 1, 1976, thereby prejudicing a substantial right of Hall China. An analysis of the facts and circumstances of this case reveals no effect upon any "substantial right" of Hall China as a result of the entry of July 14, 1976. Although Columbia has proceeded via the increased tariff with the recovery of the cost of the emergency gas from the curtailed customers, including Hall China, Columbia has been required to file an undertaking. The terms of this undertaking protect Hall China and others from loss if, upon the commission's final determination, the contested rates are held invalid or inapplicable. The certainty of the impairment of a "substantial right" caused by the commission's order as found in Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Highway v. Pub. Util Comm., supra, is not presented in this case. In the instant case, the effect upon the "substantial right" of Hall China is clearly contingent upon a final decision by the commission. Until the final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Talty
...issues unless absolutely necessary. In re Miller (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 99, 110, 585 N.E.2d 396; Hall China Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 206, 210, 4 O.O.3d 390, 364 N.E.2d 852. To determine the necessity of a constitutional analysis, therefore, we must first decide whether T......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition
...quoting State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool, 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 7, 716 N.E.2d 1114 (1999); accord Hall China Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission, 50 Ohio St.2d 206, 210, 4 O.O.3d 390, 364 N.E.2d 852 (1977), citing State ex rel. Herbert v. Ferguson, 142 Ohio St. 496, 52 N.E.2d 980 (1944) ("Ohio law ab......
-
Kinzel v. Ebner
... ... strictly adhere to the public notice and hearing ... requirements. The City responds ... are pertinent: ... [Section] 3 CITY COMMISSION. CREATION AND POWERS ... There is hereby created, ... 28, 630 N.E.2d 329 (1994); Hall China Co. v. Public ... Utilities Commission, 50 Ohio ... ...
-
State v. Bevly
...Ohioans for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Taft, 67 Ohio St.3d 180, 183, 616 N.E.2d 905 (1993), quoting Hall China Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 50 Ohio St.2d 206, 210, 364 N.E.2d 852 (1977) ( " ‘Ohio law abounds with precedent to the effect that constitutional issues should not be decided unless ......
-
How Ohio v. Talty provided for future bans on procreation and the consequences that action brings: Ohio v. Talty: hiding in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
...814 N.E.2d at 1202. (143) Id. (144) Id. at 1203. See In re Miller, 585 N.E.2d 396, 405 (Ohio 1992); Hall China Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 364 N.E.2d 852, 854 (Ohio (145) Id. (146) Id. (147) Talty, 814 N.E.2d at 1206 (citing United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1986); United States......