Case Name: OHIO UTILITIES CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-06-12
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 10
Docket Number: No. 17825
Parties: OHIO UTILITIES CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 10–10

Head Matter:
No. 13
OHIO UTILITIES CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Ohio Supreme Court
No. 17825.
Decided June 12, 1923
974. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION— Supreme Court will not disturb findings of unless against or clearly unsupported by evidence — Commission’s conclusions are not j judgments, but are orders and regulations— Testimony of experts of Commission is to be regarded the same as the testimony of other witnesses.
Attorneys — J. C. Martin, Columbus, for Utilities Co.; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and E. E. Corn, Ironton, Granville Barreré and Burch D. Higgins, both of Hillsboro, for Utilities Commission.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Epitomized Opinion
First Publication of this Opinion
The Ohio Utilities Company was engaged in supplying gas and electricity to the Yillage of Hillsboro, Ohio. In 1920 a certain business association of that village filed a protest with the Public Utilities Commission against the rates that had previously been filed by the Gas Company. The Public Utilities Commission reduced these rates and entered an order that the Company refund in cash or by credit any differences between the new rates and the charges imposed upon its consumers from 1920 to 1923. Upon denial of the application for a re-hearing, the Company prosecuted error to the Supreme Court. In affirming the order of the Commission, the Supreme Court held:
1. Findings of the Public Utilities Commission, fixing the rates to be charged by a public utility, should not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless they are' so manifestly against the weight of evidence and so clearly unsupported by it as to show misapprehension, mistake, or willful disregard of duty.
2. While the State Public Utilities Commission is not a court, it exercises quasi judicial functions, and while its conclusions are not judgments, they are orders and regulations, and the exercise of a sound discretion is within the purview of its powers.
3. An order of a Public Utility Commission, fixing rates to be charged by a utility, will not be refused merely because recommendations by experts of the commission were not followed in full, but the testimony of such experts is to be regarded the same as that of other witnesses or means of gathering information which might be weighed and considered by the commission.