Opinion

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the Southeast

  • 281 N.C. 318
  • 189 S.E.2d 705
  • 1972 N.C. LEXIS 1080
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Jun 16, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Bobbitt
On the bench
Lake, Bobbitt, Higgins, Sharp
Cited by
95 cases

Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co.

“The Commission, however, does not have the full power of the Legislature but only that portion conferred upon it in G.S. Chapter 62. In fixing the rates to be charged by a public utility for its service, the Commission must, therefore, comply with the requirements of that chapter, more specifically, G.S. 62-133.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The Commission, however, does not have the full power of the Legislature but only that portion conferred upon it in G.S. Chapter 62. In fixing the rates to be charged by a public utility for its service, the Commission must, therefore, comply with the requirements of that chapter, more specifically, G.S. 62-133.”
  • “It is . . . the prerogative of the [Utilities] Commission to determine the credibility of evidence . . . .”
  • noting that patents are intangible assets of corporations
  • ‘“North Carolina users of telephones are not to be required to furnish revenue to maintain applicant’s financial condition which other states refuse to provide’ ”

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co.

    See Utilities Comm. v. Telephone Co., 281 N.C. 318, 189 S.E. 2d 705 (1972), superseded by statute, Utilities Comm. v. Power Co., 305 N.C. 1, 287 S.E. 2d 786 (1982).
    Supreme Court of North CarolinaJan 27, 1982by statutemedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

Chief Justice Bobbitt,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I concur in that portion of the Court’s decision which holds that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the deduction by the Commission of $978,000.00 from General’s “net investment in plant” (original cost less depreciation) by reason of profits earned by Automatic upon its sales to General. With this exception, I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Parker. I deem it unnecessary to approve or disapprove the extended discussions in the Court’s opinion relating to the determination of replacement cost, less depreciation, and other questions not directly presented by this appeal. These should be decided when drawn into focus by proper exceptions and full argument.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.