Opinion

Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

  • 64 Ohio St. 2d 175
  • 18 Ohio Op. 3d 389
  • 413 N.E.2d 1208
  • 1980 Ohio LEXIS 860
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 23, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Dowd, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I must dissent in that I feel that not to reimburse, or at least make certain allowances to this utility company, for all the commission mandated costs associated with the provision of electrical services during the coal strike emergency is not only inequitable, but borders upon being an unconstitutional taking of property and a violation of due process of law.

It is true that R. C. 4905.22 mandates that public utilities furnish necessary and adequate service and facilities, but the utility should in return be compensated in a just and reasonable manner. Here, in my view, the service which the commission ordered was beyond that which would have normally satisfied the utility’s duty under the law. It should be reasonably compensated for such service.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.