DIS - Case Record for 87-1164-TP-CSS Skip to main content
      
      
CASE NUMBER: 87-1164-TP-CSS
CASE DESCRIPTION: R. SHENK V CINCINNATI BELL TEL CO
DOCUMENT SIGNED ON: 4/25/2024
DATE OF SERVICE: ________________________________________
09/27/1988 Entry dismissing case.
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.
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.
04/12/1988 Trans., for hearing held on 3/21/88, (DS) Con't. Vol. I, 1-3 pages.
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)
03/14/1988 Joint request for continuance filed by S. Randazzo, M. Scoliere and T. Taylor.
03/02/1988 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company.
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)
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.
02/01/1988 Trans., for hearing held on 1/15/88, (DS) Submitted Vol. I, 1-3 pages.
01/28/1988 Letter filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, requesting a hearing be set in this matter.
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)
01/08/1988 Letter filed by and on behalf of R. Shenk, requesting a postponement of hearing scheduled 1/15/88.
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.
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.
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.
10/28/1987 Transcript for hearing held October 22, 1987, (DS) 3 pages, Continued.
10/27/1987 Letter filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell stating that the hearing be held on January 15, 1987.
10/19/1987 Letter filed by R. Shenk, RE: agreeing with the hearing being postponed until 1/15/88 with attachements.
10/08/1987 Proof of Publication filed. (County/Hamilton)
10/07/1987 Notice of Deposition and request for production of documents filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company.
10/07/1987 Request for extension of time filed by D. Olson on behalf of Cincinanti Bell Telephone Company.
09/25/1987 Legal notice sent to the Cincinnati Enquirer (Hamilton County).
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)
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.
09/01/1987 Answer of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company filed by D. Olson.
08/14/1987 Acknowledgement letter from Chairman Chema to; Mr. Richard L. Shenk/Richard L. Shenk Development Co.
08/10/1987 Complaint form letter and copy of complaint mailed out to: Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company/Office of the President.
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.