Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 5, 2010No. 26795Published

1DissentJustice Kittredge

I respectfully dissent. The City of Newberry annexed the property in question (the Wal-Mart property) on July 27, 1999. I agree with the majority that because Newberry Electric Cooperative was not serving the Wal-Mart property on the date of annexation, the City of Newberry had the exclusive statutory right to provide electric service to the property. In my judgment, the City lost its right to provide electric service by failing to assert its claim within the statutory period of limitations. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, the three-year statute of limitations began on July…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Miller v. Pacific Shore FundingDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2002
  2. Burgess v. American Cancer Society, South Carolina Division, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1989
  3. Epstein v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  4. Moates v. BobbCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1996
  5. Anonymous Taxpayer v. South Carolina Department of RevenueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008

2 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