State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Kiroff

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Kiroff

348 N.E.2d 705, 46 Ohio St. 2d 397, 75 Ohio Op. 2d 461, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 653

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 16, 1976

DocketNo. 76-185

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 348 N.E.2d 705 (State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Kiroff) 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. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Kiroff, 348 N.E.2d 705, 46 Ohio St. 2d 397, 75 Ohio Op. 2d 461, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 653 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principal question presented is whether a Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of rates being charged by a public utility.

R. C. 4903.12 states “UCo court other than the Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend or delay any order made by the Public Utilities Commission * *

In State, ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co., v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 6, this court stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus that “ [t]he General Assembly, by the enactment of statutory provisions requiring a public utility to file and adhere to rate schedules, * * * has lodged exclusive jurisdiction in such matters in the Public Utilities Commission, subject to review by the Supreme Court. ’ ’

There being an unauthorized assumption of judicial authority by the respondents, as judges of their respective Common Pleas Courts, for which no adequate remedy at law is shown, a writ of prohibition will issue as requested by relator.

Writ allowed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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