Court Opinion

ID: 9801125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:45:54.552588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:01.206092
License: Public Domain

Cook, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 11} The majority concludes that the commission’s determination was “unlawful, unreasonable, and against the manifest weight of the evidence and shows mistake or misapprehension on the commission’s part.” Given the ambiguous nature of the evidence offered by the parties concerning the issue of notice to Ameritech and the commission’s competence in interpreting its own orders and regulations in assessing that evidence, this court should accord deference to the judgment of the Public Utilities Commission and its construction of its own rules. AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 150, 154, 555 N.E.2d 288; Dayton v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 160, 162, 21 O.O.2d 427, 187 N.E.2d 150.
*169{¶ 12} I do not conclude that the commission abused its discretion here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.