| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 10/03/2023 | Case Action Form Closing the case with an effective date of 9-29-23 electronically filed by Ms. Mary E. Fischer on behalf of Jay S. Agranoff, Attorney Examiner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. | 4 |
| 12/22/2011 | Supreme Court Document The following decision, announcement or notice of action by the Supreme Court of Ohio with respect to this case is provided solely for the information and convenience of the reader, and should not be construed as a part of the record of this case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, and may be subject to formal revision before it is published in the Ohio Official Reports. The Court’s opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/ - Dismissal Entry (July 30, 2007) electronically filed by Kimberly L Keeton on behalf of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio | 2 |
| 10/11/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 10/10/2006 | Supreme Court Transmittal Papers (S.C. 06-1697) | 6 |
| 09/11/2006 | Notice of appeal of appellant The Chillicothe Telephone Company (SC#06-1697) filed by D. Conway. | 7 |
| 07/12/2006 | Entry ordering that the application of CTC for rehearing is denied in its entirety; that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe set forth in Finding (21) of the Commission Order remains effective. | 12 |
| 07/12/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 05/16/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 05/16/2006 | Entry granting CTC its application for rehearing in accordance with Finding (5); that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe set forth in Finding (21) of the Commission's March 20, 2006, Finding and Order is suspended. | 3 |
| 05/01/2006 | Memorandum contra, memorandum in support filed by J. Chuang on behalf of Cinergy Communications. | 9 |
| 04/19/2006 | Application for rehearing for The Chillicothe Telephone Company filed by D. Conway. | 12 |
| 03/20/2006 | Finding and Order, Ordered that Cinergy's motion for admission pro hac vice is granted; that OCC's motion to intervene is denied in accordance with Finding (9); that CTC's motion for leave to file reply comments is granted in part and denied in part, as specified in Finding (9); that the exemption requests, as well as the suspension and modification requests, of applicants are denied in accordance with Findings (16) and (19), that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe is clarified as discussed in Finding (21). | 12 |
| 03/20/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 03/03/2006 | Memorandum Contra to the Chillicothe Telephone Company's motion for leave to file reply comments and request for expedited ruling, memorandum in support filed by J. Chuang on behalf of Cinergy Communications Company. | 16 |
| 02/24/2006 | Reply comments in support of its October 21, 2005 application and petition, filed on behalf of the Chillicothe Telephone Company by D. Conway. | 12 |