# 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/9568546

## 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 Sharp
- **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- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel.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/9568546

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that patents are intangible assets of corporations

## Opinion text

Justice Sharp,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s decision that “the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the deduction by the Commission of $978,000 from General’s ‘net investment in plant’ (orginal cost less depreciation) by reason of profits earned by Automatic upon its sales to General.”
In all other respects I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals upon the grounds so succinctly stated by Judge Parker in the opinion of that Court. Thus, I dissent from the majority’s decision that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Commission’s finding that General’s investment in its North Carolina telephone plant should be reduced in the amount of $690,340 as “excess margin in central office equipment in re *375 lation to the test period.” In my judgment the Commission erred in making this deduction and this Court errs in affirming it.
In my view, the extended discussions and pronouncements in the majority opinion go far beyond the questions presented for decision on this appeal. The opinion is a dissertation upon the theory of rate making which clearly manifests the scholarship and indefatigability of the author. Yet, with all deference, I do not deem it the proper function of this Court, in any case, to attempt to encompass the law of future cases. Those will present facts and problems we cannot now anticipate, and the arguments which they engender may open avenues heretofore unexplored.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568546. Public record. Not legal advice.