Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.271 (2026)

Authorization from pole owner required for attachment

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      757.271 Authorization from pole owner required for attachment. (1) Subject to applicable regulations of the Public Utility Commission, a person shall not establish an attachment to a pole or other facility of a public utility, telecommunications utility or consumer-owned utility unless the person has executed a contract with and has authorization from the utility allowing the attachment.

      (2) A licensee shall report all pole attachments to the pole owner. A pole owner may impose on a licensee a penalty charge for failing to report an attachment. The pole owner also may charge the licensee for any expenses incurred as a result of an unauthorized attachment or any attachment that exceeds safety limits established by rule of the commission. [1999 c.832 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “” *378 Qwest also argues that the PUC’s penalty rules are not authorized by HB 2271 and ORS 757.271, contrary to what the PUC determined.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.271(1): 1 case
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “” *378 Qwest also argues that the PUC’s penalty rules are not authorized by HB 2271 and ORS 757.271, contrary to what the PUC determined.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.271(2): 1 case
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “” *378 Qwest also argues that the PUC’s penalty rules are not authorized by HB 2271 and ORS 757.271, contrary to what the PUC determined.”
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.