Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Boren Clay Products Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 19, 1980No. 7810UC1029Published

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

Under G.S. 62-75 the burden of proof at the hearing before the Commission rested upon the respondent railroads to show that the proposed rates were just and reasonable. Utilities Commission v. R.R., 267 N.C. 317, 148 S.E. 2d 210 (1966). The Utilities Commission found that respondents had met that burden. Upon this appeal the order of the Commission allowing the rate increase shall be deemed “prima facie just and reasonable,” and protestant bears the burden of showing some error of law. G.S. 62-94. See Utilities Com. v. R.R., 235 N.C. 273, 69 S.E. 2d 502 (1952).

Protestant Boren…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Lee Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API