| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 09/27/1988 | Entry dismissing case. | 0 |
| 09/14/1988 | Stipulation requesting dismissal, with prejudice filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company and S. Randazzo on behalf of Richard L. Shenk Development Co. | 0 |
| 05/18/1988 | Letter filed by S. Randazzo on behalf of complainant, RE: to the parties providing the Commission with a final report in the near future. | 0 |
| 04/12/1988 | Trans., for hearing held on 3/21/88, (DS) Con't. Vol. I, 1-3 pages. | 0 |
| 03/17/1988 | Entry continuing hearing for an indefinite period of time; Ordering that in the event the parties' differences cannot be resolved, counsel for the complainant shall notify the Attorney Examiner of a mutually agreeable hearing date or, in the alternative, the status of negotiations in this matter no later than 5/13/88. (AE) | 0 |
| 03/14/1988 | Joint request for continuance filed by S. Randazzo, M. Scoliere and T. Taylor. | 0 |
| 03/02/1988 | Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company. | 0 |
| 02/11/1988 | Entry scheduling hearing to be held on 3/21/88, at 10:00 a.m at the offices of the Commission. (AE) | 0 |
| 02/09/1988 | Letter filed by S. Randazzo on behalf of complainant, requesting hearing be scheduled for 3/21/88, beginning at 10:00 a.m. | 0 |
| 02/01/1988 | Trans., for hearing held on 1/15/88, (DS) Submitted Vol. I, 1-3 pages. | 0 |
| 01/28/1988 | Letter filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, requesting a hearing be set in this matter. | 0 |
| 01/08/1988 | Entry ordering hearing be continued and that the parties arrange a future date for hearing which is convenient to them and to the Commission and that counsel for respondent notify the Attorney Examiner of such date no later than 2/1/88. (AE) | 0 |
| 01/08/1988 | Letter filed by and on behalf of R. Shenk, requesting a postponement of hearing scheduled 1/15/88. | 0 |
| 01/07/1988 | Letter filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Tele- phone Co., requesting the Commission postpone the hearing in order to give the parties an opportunity to resolve this dispute without the Commission's intervention. | 0 |
| 12/28/1987 | Letter filed by R. Shenk on behalf of Richard L. Shenk Development Co., Relative to copy of letter attached to: Mr. David Olson, counsel for Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company. | 0 |
| 11/03/1987 | Entry granting request for continuance and scheduling hearing on January 15, 1988 at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of the Commission. | 0 |
| 10/28/1987 | Transcript for hearing held October 22, 1987, (DS) 3 pages, Continued. | 0 |
| 10/27/1987 | Letter filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell stating that the hearing be held on January 15, 1987. | 0 |
| 10/19/1987 | Letter filed by R. Shenk, RE: agreeing with the hearing being postponed until 1/15/88 with attachements. | 0 |
| 10/08/1987 | Proof of Publication filed. (County/Hamilton) | 0 |
| 10/07/1987 | Notice of Deposition and request for production of documents filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company. | 0 |
| 10/07/1987 | Request for extension of time filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinanti Bell Telephone Company. | 0 |
| 09/25/1987 | Legal notice sent to the Cincinnati Enquirer (Hamilton County). | 0 |
| 09/24/1987 | Entry scheduling hearing to be held on 10/22/87, at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of the Commission. (AE) | 0 |
| 09/22/1987 | Letter filed by and on behalf of R. Shenk Development Co., RE: to staff's recommendation being unreasonable and unwarranted and that the circumstance should not be imposed. | 0 |
| 09/01/1987 | Answer of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company filed by D. Olson. | 0 |
| 08/14/1987 | Acknowledgement letter from Chairman Chema to; Mr. Richard L. Shenk/Richard L. Shenk Development Co. | 0 |
| 08/10/1987 | Complaint form letter and copy of complaint mailed out to: Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company/Office of the President. | 0 |
| 08/05/1987 | Complaint of Richard L. Shenk Development Co. (Vs) Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., RE: to the alleging the General Exchange Tariff, PUCO No. 7, Section 1, is un- reasonable and unwarranted and is inapplicable to the circumstance, and should not be imposed. | 0 |