Title: Verizon N., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Verizon N., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 91, 2004-Ohio-44.] 
 
 
VERIZON NORTH, INC., APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Verizon N., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 91, 2004-Ohio-
44.] 
Public Utilities Commission — Telephone companies — Appeal from Public 
Utilities Commission dismissed sua sponte, when. 
(No. 2003-0568 — Submitted September 23, 2003 — Decided January 21, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, No. 00-127-TP-COI. 
____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
This is an appeal as of right by Verizon North, Inc. (“Verizon”) of 
decisions of appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“commission”). 
{¶2} 
Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) filed a motion for leave to 
intervene as an appellee in this appeal and, as a prospective intervenor, filed a 
merit brief. We find that in his statutory capacity as representative of the 
residential customers of Verizon’s telephone service, OCC has demonstrated that 
he is a real party in interest in this appeal.  Therefore, we grant OCC’s motion. 
{¶3} 
Upon consideration of the briefs and the record before us, we 
conclude as urged by the commission that further deliberation by the court would 
be a vain act that this court declines to undertake.  Travis v. Pub. Util. Comm. 
(1931), 123 Ohio St. 355, 175 N.E. 586.  The only error claimed in the notice of 
appeal that is properly before this court would result in an opinion that the 
commission erred in finding that the renewed motion to alter access recovery 
charges filed by Verizon in the commission proceedings amounted to an untimely 
request for rehearing.  Such an opinion would be of little consequence to the 
parties in this appeal.  Moreover, there are a number of rate-review proceedings 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
available to Verizon in which it can pursue its rate complaints that were 
improperly raised in this appeal.  See, e.g., R.C. 4909.18.  Hence, we dismiss 
Verizon’s appeal. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and O’DONNELL, JJ., not participating. 
__________________ 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., Thomas E. Lodge and Carolyn S. Flahive, for 
appellant. 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Duane Luckey, Steven T.  Nourse and 
Matthew J. Satterwhite, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
Eric B. Stephens, Acting Consumers’ Counsel, Joseph P. Serio and David 
C. Bergmann, Assistant Consumers’ Counsel, for intervening appellee Ohio 
Consumers’ Counsel. 
Douglas W. Trabaris; Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Benita A. 
Kahn and Jeffrey R. Becker, urguing affirmance for amicus curiae AT&T 
Communications of Ohio, Inc. 
__________________