Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided April 17, 1978No. 60PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COPELAND, Justice.
The appellees initially contend that, because no appeal was taken from the Commission order establishing Rule Rl-17(h), the Attorney General is bound by the principles of res judicata and may not now challenge the validity of that rule. For reasons which follow, we have determined that this contention is not well taken; thus, we have considered the Attorney General’s arguments concerning the authority of the Commission to permit utilities to recover excess costs of exploration ventures through a tracking rate. It is our conclusion that these actions were within the power of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Ferguson v. SkrupaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the SoutheastSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission & Duke Power Co. v. EddlemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
- Maready v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Central Maine Power Co. v. Maine Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.