State ex rel. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 450

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1962

DocketNos. 37128 and 37129

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 450 (State ex rel. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 450 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the members of the court are not agreed as to whether the tendered regulation sought to be filed [452]*452constitutes 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.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the members of the court are not agreed as to whether the tendered regulation sought to be filed [452]*452constitutes 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.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Kerns and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cleveland-electric-illuminating-co-v-public-utilities-ohio-1962.