Wall v. City of Durham
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
By assignments of error thirteen, sixteen, and seventeen, plaintiffs contend that the court erred in concluding that the defendant’s ordinance and billing practice was not unreasonably discriminatory and was justified by a factual basis. We agree.
The authority of a municipal corporation to own, operate, and finance a public utility is granted by G.S. § 160A-312. The authority to fix and enforce rates is contained in G.S. § 160A-314(a), which provides:
A city may establish and revise from time to time schedules of rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Highway Commission v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Dale Ex Rel. Dale v. City of MorgantonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Town of Taylorsville v. Modern CleanersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Webber v. WebberCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barnhill Sanitation Service, Inc. v. Gaston CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- City of Wilson v. Carolina Builders of Wilson, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Cedar Greene, LLC v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
- Cedar Greene, LLC v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
- United States Cold Storage, Inc. v. Town of WarsawCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.