State ex rel. O'Brien v. Powerfone, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. O'Brien v. Powerfone, Inc.

692 N.E.2d 1026, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1525, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1310

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 29, 1998

Docket98-630

StatusPublished

This text of 692 N.E.2d 1026 (State ex rel. O'Brien v. Powerfone, Inc.) 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. O'Brien v. Powerfone, Inc., 692 N.E.2d 1026, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1525, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1310 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 97APC05-639. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists, as stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry dated March 10,1998:

“On motion of appellants, it is the order of this court that the motion to certify the judgment of this court as being in conflict with the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Adam v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Bath Twp. (July 23, 1997), No. 18144, unreported [1997 WL 423040], is sustained and pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article TV, Ohio Constitution, the record of this case is certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review and final determination on the following question:

“ ^Whether a finding that an entity provides an essential good or service to the general public is a necessary prerequisite to that entity’s being a public utility exempt from zoning regulation.’”

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 98-148, infra, and cause held for the decision in 98-46 and 98-94, infra; briefing schedule stayed.

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

Franklin App. No. 97APC05-639. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists, as stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry dated March 10,1998:

“On motion of appellants, it is the order of this court that the motion to certify the judgment of this court as being in conflict with the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Adam v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Bath Twp. (July 23, 1997), No. 18144, unreported [1997 WL 423040], is sustained and pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article TV, Ohio Constitution, the record of this case is certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review and final determination on the following question:

“ ^Whether a finding that an entity provides an essential good or service to the general public is a necessary prerequisite to that entity’s being a public utility exempt from zoning regulation.’”

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 98-148, infra, and cause held for the decision in 98-46 and 98-94, infra; briefing schedule stayed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 N.E.2d 1026, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1525, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-obrien-v-powerfone-inc-ohio-1998.