Current Events > 'Missing comma' in 1948 document leads to legal dispute over power lines

(+) Yeah! (+)

High school students from two eastern Ohio counties will have a chance next week to observe legal arguments made before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Some might feel like they instead are in an English class.

In the school auditorium of Buckeye Local High School in Jefferson County, the Supreme Court justices will consider a long-standing dispute regarding six words and a comma. At issue is what the phrase right to trim, cut and remove means in a 1948 legal document.

Ohio Edison Company, which has a 1948 easement allowing it to keep plants and other obstructions on a persons property from interfering with overhead electric power lines, believes the language permits it to use herbicide.The Corder family, which owns Harrison County farmland including 12.1 acres with an easement granted to Ohio Edison, argues that the power company cant spray chemicals but can only use tools to cut or trim plants and then remove what was pruned from the property.

The legal dispute began in 2017 when the Corders filed a lawsuit in Harrison County Common Pleas Court seeking an injunction to prevent Ohio Edison from using herbicide. The Corders maintained that spraying herbicide was hazardous to their organic farming and to a family members health. Ohio Edison has been skeptical of the familys dedication to organic farming and allegations that its spraying will cause health concerns.

The case reached the Supreme Court in 2020 on the issue of whether the Harrison County trial court could interpret the easement or if that duty belonged to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court should determine what the parties meant by the phrase right to trim, cut and remove. In 2021, the trial court found the language didnt authorize using herbicide. Ohio Edison appealed the decision to the Seventh District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial courts decision.

Ohio Edison appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider the case again.

Ohio Edison argues the 1948 easement should be interpreted by its overall purpose, which was to grant the company the right to come on the Corders land to ensure the power lines are not obstructed. The company argues the language gives it three overlapping rights -- to trim, cut, or remove plants that can interfere with the lines. Ohio Edison asserts that the lack of a comma between cut and remove, which is common in such easements from that time, shouldnt lead to such a narrow interpretation that confines the utility only to use tools to take down the trees and other plants. The company has 7,000 miles of power lines in Ohio, and such an interpretation could impact thousands of easements and potentially raise the costs of maintaining the lines.

The Corders didnt own the property when the easement was signed. To determine what remove might have meant at the time, Ohio Edison looked at definitions in the 1948 edition of Websters New International Dictionary.

Among the definitions of remove are to eradicate and to eliminate. The company argues that in the context of the easement, that is a proper way to interpret remove and justifies using herbicide.

The Corders argue the more typical meanings of remove in the 1948 dictionary include to shift the location or take away, which is exactly what the easement allows. The only right Ohio Edison has is to trim or cut the vegetation and then remove it and not leave branches and limbs on the property, the family asserts.

Uh oh, probably the one time that being a Grammar Nazi wouldve likely saved the courts a whole lot of headaches, just sayin.

Supreme Court of Ohio? Sorry farmer, youre getting some DDT sprayed all over your property.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zim09f0VsQ

Thats the same Lawtuber who inadvertently exposed Illuminaughtii as a very bad person after she falsely accused him of stealing her editing styles, yeah? Mad props to him for being the hero we didnt deserve in that instance, as he helped get long overdue justice for the people she wronged over the years, even if I dont necessarily agree with him on everything he covers.

Illuminaughti did it to herself when she, completely unprompted, accused that YouTuber of plagiarism. He didn't uncover/do anything except deny the claim and present evidence that he had used the alleged plagiarized material before she did.

I think the comma question I would agree with the company. I'm not sure if I think herbicide counts as "removing" though. Won't the plant matter still be there? So it's more like killing than trimming, cutting, or removing.

They talk about removal being a synonym for eradication. Personally I think it should count because otherwise the law reads like it's ok to use herbicide as long as you also cut the plants somehow which doesn't make any sense.

I think it's okay to use herbicide as long as it is needed to trim, cut, or remove the plant. There's some common sense here. Would the company be allowed to just use dynamite because they want to? Obviously not, and it's because there are easier ways to remove the plant.

There's different laws saying you can't use explosives. There's nothing inherently illegal about herbicides. Are you gonna convict someone under this law if they pour out a beer on their lawn?

I guess I don't understand how the comma or lack thereof changes the definition of "remove"

I guess I don't understand how the comma or lack thereof changes the definition of "remove"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zim09f0VsQ

Always Oxford comma

I guess I don't understand how the comma or lack thereof changes the definition of "remove"

This is a good opportunity for me to ask: is the Oxford comma issue an American vs. British thing? When I'm reading a journal article, most that don't use the Oxford comma seem to use British spelling.

They definitely teach it in American schools. Either people dont remember how to use it, or they are just stubborn and think it doesnt matter.

The difference between "the right to trim, cut and remove [the debris]"

vs. "the right to trim, cut [missing comma?] and remove [trees]" [brackets mine]

is that the 1st interpretation means pretty much what it says - cut and remove debris.

The second interpretation - adding a comma - gives the company the ability to use herbicides - or seemingly whatever they think will "remove" trees, when without the "missing" comma it seems to me the sentence is clearly about just "removing debris".

Where do trees come from the term 'remove'?

Daily reminder to always use the Oxford comma and avoid situations like these.

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma

Ironically, this attitude is the one created this legal dispute lmao.

Yeah, it sounds esoteric, but it's the difference between a crew coming in and cutting down trees, vs. some 'Agent Orange' type of chemical be used on private property.

comma doesn't matter, "remove" in itself gives broad authority

some lawyers just like to hold everything up with technicalities and make as much $$$ as they can along the way