Grossman v. Public Utilities Commission
214 N.E.2d 666, 5 Ohio St. 2d 189, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 347, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 407
Opinion
This case presents a question of fact. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant. He has failed to produce evidence to establish his claim. The order of the Public Utilities Commission is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Grossman v. Public Utilities Commission, 214 N.E.2d 666, 5 Ohio St. 2d 189, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 347, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 407 (Ohio 1966).
214 N.E.2d 666 (Grossman v. Public Utilities Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Complaint of Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 2300 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2021)
Corrigan v. Illum. Co. (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7555 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)
In re Complaints of Lycourt-Donovan v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7566 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)
In re Complaint of OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc.
2013 Ohio 4721 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
Luntz Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm.
1997 Ohio 342 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Luntz Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission
79 Ohio St. 3d 509 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Myers v. Public Utilities Commission
595 N.E.2d 873 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
Myers v. Pub. Util. Comm.
1992 Ohio 135 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
Thomas v. Public Utilities Commission
493 N.E.2d 1328 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
471 N.E.2d 475 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984)