utility requires a flexible rule. See A & B Refuse Disposers, Inc. v. Bd. of Ravenna Township Trs., 596 N.E.2d 423, 426 (Ohio 1992). No single factor is controlling in determining whether an entity is a public utility, although each must be weighed, including lack of competition in the local marketplace, the good or service provided, and the existence of regulation by government authority. See Campanelli v. AT&T Wireless Serv. Inc., 706 N.E.2d 1267, 1269 (Ohio 1999) (noting no one factor is determinative). It is important to note that the emphasis in such a determination should be placed on the function of the service provided rather than a literal interpretation of the definition of a public utility. Utilities Comm. v. Southern Bell, 326 N.C. 522, 527-28, 391 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Nor does the number of subscribers matter in
holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding the function of a public utility is controlling not how the term is defined holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment holding that the wellestablished rule is that it is the function of the state to determine how its residents may enter into the marital relationship