Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

673 N.E.2d 143, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1483, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2315

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.. Read the opinion of the Court — 76 Ohio St. 3d 521 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 18, 1996·No. 95-2444·Published

Opinion

Public Utilities Commission, No. 95-458-EL-UNC. Reported at 76 Ohio St.3d 521, 668 N.E.2d 889. On motion for reconsideration of Ohio Power Company and on motion for reconsideration of Medical Center Company.

The motions fail for want of four votes on the following vote:

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Stratton, JJ., would grant the motions in part. Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., would deny the motions. F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.

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

The motions fail for want of four votes on the following vote:

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Stratton, JJ., would grant the motions in part. Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., would deny the motions. F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.

Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 673 N.E.2d 143, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1483, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2315 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

673 N.E.2d 143 (Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

668 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Opinion

Related