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

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 16, 1972 · 281 N.C. 318

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568544

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION and ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST and CITY OF DURHAM
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 16, 1972
- **Citations:** 281 N.C. 318; 189 S.E.2d 705; 1972 N.C. LEXIS 1080
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bobbitt
- **Judges:** Lake, Bobbitt, Higgins, Sharp
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co..
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568544

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that patents are intangible assets of corporations

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568544. Public record. Not legal advice.