From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1966
5 Ohio St. 2d 189 (Ohio 1966)

Opinion

No. 39436

Decided March 2, 1966.

Telephone companies — Rates for concentrator-identifier equipment — Burden on complainant to prove unreasonable and excessive — Evidence insufficient to support claim.

APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.

The appellant Grossman, president of the Midtown Telephone Answering Service, Inc., is engaged in the telephone answering service business. His service is answering unanswered calls intended for his patrons. The facilities used are known as concentrator-identifier equipment.

Appellant protested, to the Public Utilities Commission, the rates established by the Ohio Bell Telephone Company for its six-trunk concentrator-identifier equipment, contending that such rates are excessive and unreasonable.

The commission found that the appellant failed to sustain the burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.

An appeal from the order of the commission brings the cause to this court for review.

Mr. William B. Webber and Messrs. Roemisch Wright, for appellant.

Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Theodore K. High and Mr. Clark G. Redick, for appellee.


This case presents a question of fact. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant. He has failed to produce evidence to establish his claim. The order of the Public Utilities Commission is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1966
5 Ohio St. 2d 189 (Ohio 1966)
Case details for

Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm

Case Details

Full title:GROSSMAN, MIDTOWN TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT v. PUBLIC…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 2, 1966

Citations

5 Ohio St. 2d 189 (Ohio 1966)
214 N.E.2d 666

Citing Cases

Myers v. Pub. Util. Comm

These classifications and rates are presumed just and reasonable, and appellant bears the burden of…

Luntz Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm

Luntz had the burden of proving its complaint against Ohio Edison. Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1966), 5…