Corrigan v. Illum. Co. (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7555
| Ohio | 2017Background
- A silver maple on the Corrigans’ property stood within an easement granted to the Illuminating Company and was targeted for removal under the company’s transmission right-of-way vegetation-management program.
- The Corrigans obtained a common-pleas injunction preventing removal; the company appealed and the Ohio Supreme Court held PUCO’s jurisdiction over vegetation-management plans was exclusive, directing the dispute to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).
- PUCO held a hearing and found the tree extensively decayed, unlikely to respond durably to further pruning, and posing safety and reliability risks (outages, fire, electrocution); PUCO concluded removal was reasonable.
- The Corrigans sought stays from PUCO and this court; PUCO briefly stayed removal but this court denied a stay for failure to post bond/notice; the company removed the tree without further stay.
- The Corrigans appealed PUCO’s final order, arguing the evidence did not support findings that pruning was impracticable or that the tree posed a threat; the Supreme Court reviewed for lawfulness and reasonableness and affirmed PUCO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pruning remained a viable alternative to removal | Corrigan: Past and future pruning could preserve the tree; pruning enabled coexistence with the line | Company: Tree was extensively decayed; past pruning shortened life and future pruning would deplete vigor or fail | Court: Evidence supports PUCO that pruning was not viable; affirmed |
| Whether the tree posed a threat to transmission safety/reliability | Corrigan: Tree was outside horizontal NESC clearance and not an imminent threat; supplemental support could extend life | Company: Decay made failure likely; if it fell it could contact wires causing outages/fires; support system likely to fail | Court: Record shows parts were destined to fail and could interfere; removal reasonable |
| Whether the company’s vegetation-management program conflicted with PUCO policy favoring preservation | Corrigan: PUCO policy requires minimizing impact and preserving trees when possible | Company: Program complies with rule requiring removal of vegetation that can interfere with transmission | Court: PUCO found program consistent with rules and policy as applied; no reversible error |
| Burden of proof and scope of review | Corrigan: Argued company should have proven customers couldn’t maintain trees | Company: Corrigans, as complainants, bore burden to show company acted unreasonably | Court: Corrigans failed to meet burden; appellate review defers to PUCO’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265, 910 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio 2009) (PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over vegetation-management-plan disputes)
- Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm., 131 Ohio St.3d 283, 964 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio 2012) (evidentiary support for PUCO orders authorizing tree removal)
- Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 530, 820 N.E.2d 885 (Ohio 2004) (standard for reversing PUCO orders)
- Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 571, 820 N.E.2d 921 (Ohio 2004) (deference to PUCO on factual findings when supported by probative evidence)
- Util. Serv. Partners, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 284, 921 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence credited by PUCO)
- Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 340, 872 N.E.2d 269 (Ohio 2007) (deference to PUCO factual determinations)
- Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm., 5 Ohio St.2d 189, 214 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio 1966) (complainant bears burden to prove utility acted unreasonably)
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 271, 951 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio 2011) (abstract policy disagreements do not, alone, establish reversible error)