Legal Opinion
Corrigan v. Illuminating Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 4, 2009No. 2008-0708PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
I
{¶ 1} At first glance, this case appears to concern the fate of a single tree. The larger issue, however, is who controls that fate — the court of common pleas or the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
{¶ 2} Appellant, the Illuminating Company (“the company”), is a public utility that provides electric service. In order to provide safe and reliable delivery of electricity, the company must maintain its easements to keep vegetation from coming in contact with electricity lines. On July 2, 2004, appellees, Mary-Martha and Dennis Corrigan, received a letter from the company stating that it was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. WinterOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- State ex rel. Illuminating Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. HensonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State Ex Rel. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- State Ex Rel. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. v. Hamilton County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Carbone v. Nueva Constr. Group, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
- DeLost v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
- Ohio Edison Co. v. WilkesOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.