North Ridge Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

North Ridge Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

381 N.E.2d 1319, 56 Ohio St. 2d 73, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 174, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 655

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 8, 1978·No. No. 77-1486·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants, disputing the commission’s finding, contend that (1) a pipeline sizing plan prepared by Columbia, and provided to appellant Dettore, (2) Columbia’s distribution of promotional brochures at the mobile home park’s grand opening, and (3) an easement from appellant Dettore granting Columbia the right to lay gas lines pursuant to the sizing plan constitute a written commitment.

The interim supplemental emergency order’s definition of “commitment,” however, requires an express commitment to provide a particular residential gas service. Cremean v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 163, 167 The record in the instant cause supports the commission’s finding that there was no prior written commitment made by Columbia.

The order of the Public Utilities Commission being neither unreasonable nor unlawful is, therefore, affirmed.

Order affirmed.

P. Brown, Acting C. J., HERBERT, Celebrezze, W. Brown, McCormao, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. McCormac, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Leach, C. J.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellants, disputing the commission’s finding, contend that (1) a pipeline sizing plan prepared by Columbia, and provided to appellant Dettore, (2) Columbia’s distribution of promotional brochures at the mobile home park’s grand opening, and (3) an easement from appellant Dettore granting Columbia the right to lay gas lines pursuant to the sizing plan constitute a written commitment.

The interim supplemental emergency order’s definition of “commitment,” however, requires an express commitment to provide a particular residential gas service. Cremean v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 163, 167 The record in the instant cause supports the commission’s finding that there was no prior written commitment made by Columbia.

The order of the Public Utilities Commission being neither unreasonable nor unlawful is, therefore, affirmed.

Order affirmed.

P. Brown, Acting C. J., HERBERT, Celebrezze, W. Brown, McCormao, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. McCormac, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Leach, C. J.

North Ridge Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission, 381 N.E.2d 1319, 56 Ohio St. 2d 73, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 174, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 655 (Ohio 1978).

Pincite

381 N.E.2d 1319 (North Ridge Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related