Legal Opinion

Holmes v. City of Fayetteville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1929PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The defendant has no plant of its own for producing and furnishing electricity as a public utility, but it owns and maintains a system of poles, wires, and appliances for transmitting and delivering electricity to persons, firms, and corporations within the city. Some years ago it made a contract with the Carolina Power and Light Company, which is now in effect, for the purchase of an electric current for the use of the city and for resale or redistribution within the corporate limits and within adjacent territory distant not more than three miles from the corporate boundaries. The contract…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Briggs v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  2. Asbury v. Town of AlbemarleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Adams v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Lutterloh v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Koontz v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. City of Logansport v. Public Service CommissionIndiana Supreme Court · 1931
  3. City of Charlotte v. HeathSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Williamson v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. In Re Annexation Ordinances Nos. 866-870, Etc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

41 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