Agin v. Public Utilities Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• a “casual similarity” between the grounds alleged on rehearing and the arguments in the appellant’s brief does not satisfy the specificity requirements of R.C. 4903.10
• a “casual similarity” between the grounds stated in the rehearing application and the statements in the appellants’ brief does not meet the requirements of R.C. 4903.10
• a “casual similarity” between the grounds stated in the rehearing application and the statements in the appellants’ brief does not meet the requirements of R.C. 4903.10

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• City of Reading v. Public Utilities Commission
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2006-05-17· cited 31×
• City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1980-07-09· cited 24×
• Chester Township v. Power Siting Commission
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1977-03-16· cited 8×
• Forest Hills Utility Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1972-07-12· cited 6×
• City of Struthers v. Public Utilities Commission
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1970-07-08· cited 5×
• In re Complaint of Cameron Creek Apts. v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2013-08-29· cited 4×
• In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2025-08-22· cited 2×