State ex rel. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 27 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | 37129,Nos. 37128,s. 37128 |
| Citation | 20 O.O.2d 74,183 N.E.2d 782,173 Ohio St. 450 |
| Parties | , 45 P.U.R.3d 46, 20 O.O.2d 74 The STATE ex rel. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio et al. (two cases.) |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Lee C. Howley, Harry G. Fitzgerald, Jr., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John Lansdale, Jr., and George I. Meisel, Cleveland, for relator.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., Herbert T. Maher and Andrew R. Sarisky, Columbus, for respondent Public Utilities Commission.
Metzenbaum, Gaines, Schwartz, Krupansky, Finley & Stern, Cleveland, for respondent Shopping Centers Ass'n of Northern Ohio.
Although the members of the court are not agreed as to whether the tendered regulation sought to be filed constitutes an increase in rates for electrical energy, there is no disagreement among the members of the court about its raising a question of fact.
The major area of disagreement among the members of the court concerns the tribunal in which that question of fact should be determined. Jurisdiction over matters pertaining to utility rates is, by statute, specifically reposed in the Public Utilities Commission. It is the opinion of the majority of the court that the commission should be allowed, in the first instance, to determine its own jurisdiction and questions of fact arising thereunder. The rights of all interested parties are amply protected by the remedy of appeal from an adverse ruling of the commission.
Therefore, the motions for the appointment of a special master commissioner are overruled, the motion to dismiss the mandamus action is sustained, and such action is dismissed.
Since the commission has jurisdiction over the controversy raised by the company's application, the court, sua sponte, dismisses the prohibition action.
Cases dismissed.
KERNS, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Wilkes
-
Denison University v. Board of Tax Appeals
... ... exemption if sought is owned and used by a public college and/or public institution of learning ... of the designated character.' See, also, State ex rel. Bartlett, Pros. Atty. v. Thatcher, Aud ... v. City of Cleveland (1945), 145 Ohio St. 347, 351, 61 N.E.2d 720; and ... ...
-
Complaint of Residents of Struthers, Ohio, 87-8482
... ... entered into by a municipality with a public utility is valid and binding upon the parties ... jurisdictional review by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio of a valid contract entered ... As this court noted in State, ex rel. Herbert, v. Ferguson (1944), 142 Ohio ... In Link, the city of Cleveland passed an ordinance that was accepted in writing by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. The ordinance established the rates to ... ...
-
Shopping Centers Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission
... ... called the Commission, upon an application by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio public utilities ... and questions of fact arising thereunder.' See State ex rel. Cleveland Electric ... Illuminating Co. v. Public ... ...