Title: Toledo Edison Co. v. Bryan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Edison Co. v. Bryan, 91 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2001-Ohio-272.] 
 
 
 
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF BRYAN ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Toledo Edison Co. v. Bryan (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1233.] 
Motion for reconsideration denied. 
(No. 99-1280 — Submitted January 9, 2001 — Decided March 7, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Williams County, No. WM-98-017 
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
__________________ 
 
The motion for reconsideration is denied. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, ACTING C.J., GWIN, HADLEY, O’NEILL, PFEIFER, YOUNG 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., CONCUR. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs separately. 
 
W. SCOTT GWIN, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for MOYER, C.J. 
 
RONALD E. HADLEY, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for 
DOUGLAS, J. 
 
WILLIAM M. O’NEILL, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J. 
 
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting for 
COOK, J. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring.  The appellees have moved for reconsideration 
of this court’s decision reversing the court of appeals.  90 Ohio St.3d 288, 737 
N.E.2d 529.  I joined the decision of the majority in judgment only.  I believe that 
Section 6, Article XVIII does grant municipalities the right to resell outside their 
limits electricity purchased purposely for resale and that that section also tempers 
that right by capping the resale at fifty percent of the total service provided within 
the municipality.  In this case, four municipalities pooled their surpluses (limited 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
by the fifty-percent rule) to make a “super surplus” to sell to Chase.  I joined the 
judgment of the majority because that artificial “piling on” arrangement frustrates 
the purpose of the limitations of Section 6, Article XVIII. 
 
Appellees raise legitimate concerns.  I refrained from joining the majority 
opinion because I believed it potentially had a reach beyond the immediate issues 
presented in this case and incorrectly answered questions that were not presented 
in the briefs or argued to the court.  I consider those portions of the opinion to be 
dicta, especially in light of the fact that four members of this court recused 
themselves from this case. 
 
Still, I am voting against reconsideration.  This court has settled the 
limited issue this case presents.  Reconsideration of this matter and the issues 
raised by appellees would require full-blown reargument of the case, and that case 
would not resemble the one previously argued.  Because the relationship between 
investor-owned and municipally owned utilities involves decades of economic 
tensions and disputes, and disputes previously put to rest, I believe it would be 
unwise to further litigate this case.  The parties’ resources are best spent 
elsewhere. 
__________________ 
 
Fuller & Henry, Ltd., Craig J. Van Horsten and Mary Ann Whipple, for 
appellant. 
 
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., and John W. Bentine; Duncan & Allen 
and John P. Coyle, for appellees. 
__________________