Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.14 (2026)

Electric light, power, and automatic package carrier companies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) Except as otherwise provided in division (B) of this section, division (A) of section 4931.02, and sections 4931.03, 4931.04, and 4933.13 to 4933.16 of the Revised Code apply to a company organized for supplying public and private buildings, manufacturing establishments, streets, alleys, lanes, lands, squares, and public places with electric light and power, and to an automatic package carrier. Except as otherwise provided in division (B) of this section, every such company has the powers and is subject to the restrictions prescribed for a telephone company by division (A) of section 4931.02 and sections 4931.03 and 4931.04 of the Revised Code.

(B) Section 4931.04 of the Revised Code applies to a company organized for supplying electricity only if the company transmits or distributes electricity, and every such company has the powers and is subject to the restrictions prescribed for a telephone company by that section except for the purpose of erecting, operating, or maintaining an electric generating station.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1968–2016 · leading case: Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5083 (Ohio 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5083 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “See R.C. 4933.14(A). 3 R.C. 5571.16 pertains to the installation of new utility poles in a township right-of-way and is therefore not relevant to this appeal.”
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. City of Painesville, 239 N.E.2d 75 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 4× “Such lines shall be constructed so as not to incommode the public in the use of the roads or highways * * Section 4933.14, Bevised Code, makes the foregoing section applicable to electric public utilities such as plaintiff.”
Neiderbrach v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 640 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “The complainant further alleged that the injuries suffered by James Siler were caused directly by the negligence of DP & L and the Miami County Board of Commissioners. In its motion for summary judgment, DP & L argued that the distance of the utility pole from the edge of Brown…”
Bidar v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 2012 Ohio 3686 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “of the placement of the pole, (5) the presence or absence of reflective markers, (6) the proximity of the pole to the highway, (7) whether the utility company had notice of previous accidents at the location of the pole, and (8) the availability of less dangerous locations.”
Ohio Edison Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 486 N.E.2d 103 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “R.C. 4933.14. Thus, the mere fact that Conrail possesses the power of eminent domain does not bar the appropriation.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4933.14(A) — 1 case
Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5083 (Ohio 2016). “See R.C. 4933.14(A). 3 R.C. 5571.16 pertains to the installation of new utility poles in a township right-of-way and is therefore not relevant to this appeal.”
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.