Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

652 N.E.2d 796, 73 Ohio St. 3d 1422, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1793

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.. Read the opinion of the Court — 73 Ohio St. 3d 1401 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 2, 1995·No. 95-922·Published

Opinion

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would deny the writs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 652 N.E.2d 796, 73 Ohio St. 3d 1422, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 1793 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

652 N.E.2d 796 (Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.