Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Pub. Util. Comm.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-1435,92-1435
• Citation: 65 Ohio St.3d 438,605 N.E.2d 13
• Parties: OHIO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NETWORK, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 438

65 Ohio St.3d 438

605 N.E.2d 13

OHIO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NETWORK, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees.

No. 92-1435.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Nov. 10, 1992.

Decided Dec. 11, 1992.

On March 20, 1990, intervening appellee, Ohio Bell Telephone Company ("Ohio Bell"), filed applications with appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("commission") to amend its tariff to provide two new optional services: Caller ID and Automatic Callback. By entry issued April 11, 1991, the commission found that Ohio Bell's proposed tariff amendments may be unjust and unreasonable and set the applications for hearing pursuant to R.C. 4909.18. The commission also granted appellant, Ohio Domestic Violence Network ("ODVN"), permission to intervene.

By its order issued March 26, 1992, the commission denied the proposed tariff amendments, finding each to be unjust and unreasonable. The commission further found that if Ohio Bell still wished to offer the proposed services, it must file revised applications consistent with the terms of its order.

Ohio Bell and ODVN, among others, filed applications for rehearing of the March 26, 1992 order. In its entry on rehearing issued May 21, 1992, the commission modified the terms under which Caller ID would be acceptable, and found that Ohio Bell could offer Automatic Callback as originally proposed, subject to compliance with various non-tariff conditions. The authority to offer the services remained contingent upon Ohio Bell's willingness to file revised applications which met the specific terms set by the commission, or which contained acceptable alternatives. There is no indication in the record before us that such revised applications have been filed with, or approved by, the commission in this case.

ODVN filed its notice of appeal from the commission's orders on July 20, 1992. This cause is now before the court upon the commission's motion to dismiss.

Hahn, Loeser & Parks, Janine L. Migden, Maureen R. Grady and Randy J. Hart, for appellant.

Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., James B. Gainer and Ann E. Henkener, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Charles S. Rawlings and William H. Hunt, for intervening appellee, Ohio Bell Telephone Co.

PER CURIAM.

The commission argues that ODVN lacks standing to bring this appeal. We agree and, for the reasons which follow, grant the commission's motion to dismiss.

In Ohio Contract Carriers Assn. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1942), 140 Ohio St. 160, 23 O.O. 369, 42 N.E.2d 758, syllabus, we held that "[a]ppeal lies only on behalf of a party aggrieved by the final order appealed from. Appeals are not allowed for the purpose of settling abstract questions, but only to correct errors injuriously affecting the appellant." We explained that a "final order" under former G.C. 544, now R.C. 4903.13, is one "affecting a substantial right" (see R.C. 2505.02; Hall China Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. [1977], 50 Ohio St.2d 206, 4 O.O.3d 390, 364 N.E.2d 852), and characterized...