State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.
Intervenors argue that the Commission erred in refusing to make Tapoco a party to these proceedings. At the threshold, this requires us to determine whether, on the record before us, Tapoco is a public utility. Utilities Commission v. Water Co., 248 N.C. 27, 102 S.E. 2d 377 (1958). A public utility is defined in Section 62-3(23) of the General Statutes of North Carolina (1977 Supplement):(23) a. “Public utility” means a person, whether organized under the laws of this State or under the laws of any other state or country, now or hereafter owning or operating in this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- State ex rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. New Hope Road Water Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Whiting Manufacturing Co. v. Carolina Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
3Cited by1 opinion
- STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COM'N v. EdmistenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979