Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-18 (2026)
Powers concerning poles and wires
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority shall have power, after notice to the companies interested and public hearing, to require any public service company or certified telecommunications provider maintaining a line or lines of poles and wires in this state to change the location of such poles and wires in the public highways whenever public convenience or necessity requires such change and, if two or more companies, persons, firms or corporations are using or maintaining lines of poles or wires in the same street, to require the wires of such companies, persons, firms and corporations to be strung upon one or more lines of poles to be owned and maintained by the companies, persons, firms or corporations using the same as said authority determines.
(1949 Rev., S. 5408; P.A. 75-486, S. 1, 69; P.A. 77-614, S. 162, 610; P.A. 80-482, S. 54, 348; P.A. 94-74, S. 4, 11; P.A. 99-286, S. 6, 19; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority; P.A. 77-614 replaced public utilities control authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division an independent department and deleted reference to abolished department of business regulation; P.A. 94-74 added provisions re persons, firms or corporations certified to provide intrastate telecommunication services, effective July 1, 1994; P.A. 99-286 changed reference to person, firm or corporation certified to provide telecommunications service to “certified telecommunications provider”, effective July 19, 1999; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Department of Public Utility Control” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority”, effective July 1, 2011.
Cited. 103 C. 205; 162 C. 93.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007).
Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007). “Finally, although the rules of practice specifically address interrogatories as they relate to a general verdict; see Practice Book § 16-18 ("[t]he judicial authority may submit to the jury written interrogatories for the purpose of explaining or limiting a general verdict");…”
Rendahl v. Peluso, 162 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “At that hearing, the defendant argued that the jury's initial verdict was not valid because its verdict forms and interrogatories contained missing answers, inconsistent answers, and the interrogatories were not signed; on that basis, the defendant argued that the court could…”
Willow Springs Condo. Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Dev. Corp., 717 A.2d 77 (Conn. 1998). “) § 16-18, provides: “Interrogatories “The court may submit to the jury written interrogatories for the purpose of explaining or limiting a general verdict, which shall be answered and delivered to the clerk as a part of the verdict.”
Micalizzi v. Stewart, 188 A.3d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). “*165 A party may request that the court submit interrogatories to the jury pursuant to Practice Book § 16-18. 3 Interrogatories provide a breakdown of the components of the jury's award and of the factors underlying the jury's ultimate view of the evidence.”
Piccininni v. Hajus, 429 A.2d 886 (Conn. 1980). “In our view, the Act was designed to do away with excessive claims for damages, claims coercive by their very nature and, all too frequently, fraudulent in character; the purpose was to prevent the recovery of damages based upon contused feelings, sentimental bruises, blighted…”
Hall v. Bergman, 943 A.2d 515 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). “21 Moreover, after the jury returned the first set of jury forms, because they did not conform with the court’s instructions, counsel for the parties and the court agreed that the first set of verdict forms would be marked for identification and that a fresh set of verdict forms…”
Pagano v. Ippoliti, 716 A.2d 848 (Conn. 1998). “) § 16-18, formerly § 312. With respect to review of denials of motions to set aside the verdict, see, e.”
Hamernick v. Bach, 779 A.2d 806 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). “It did not address other concerns that a court or the parties might have to furnish the basis of a judgment being rendered or to test the correctness of a verdict being rendered by eliciting a determination of material fact.”
Cockayne v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., 270 A.3d 713 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). “2d 843 (2007); see also Practice Book § 16-18 (judicial authority may submit written interrogatories to jury); Earlington v.”
Johnson v. Pike, 46 A.3d 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “We note that the better procedure would have been to use jury interrogatories in accordance with Practice Book § 16-18. Nevertheless, even if we assume, arguendo, that the jury rejected the plaintiffs claimed shoulder injury, we conclude that the award of $50,000 in noneconomic…”
Lawson v. Aetna Life Ins., 755 A.2d 351 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). “” Practice Book § 16-18 provides in relevant part that “[t]he judicial authority may submit to the jury written interrogatories for tibe purpose of explaining or limiting a general verdict, which shall be answered and delivered to the clerk as a part of the verdict.”
Salisbury v. S. New England Tel. Co., 365 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Conn. 1973). “…safety conditions, Conn.Gen. Stat. § 16-11, investigate accidents, § 16-14, restrict use of streets, poles and wires, § 16-18, rule on rates, § 16-19, require annual reports, § 16-27, provide penalties for failure to comply with its regulations, § 16-41, and regulate mergers,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.