Town of Taylorsville v. Modern Cleaners
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Assuming arguendo that the ordinance dated 1 July 1975 increasing the rates for sewer only users was duly enacted, the question before us is whether the trial court erred in concluding that “the sewer rates of the Plaintiff when applied to the Defendant are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or an abuse of the Legislative authority of the Plaintiff . . . .”
A city’s authority to own, operate, and finance a public utility is derived from the legislature. G.S. 160A-311, et seq. G.S. 160A-314(a) provides in pertinent part:
“A city may establish and revise from time to time schedules of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Griffin v. Goldsboro Water Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- 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
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Nello L. Teer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
3Cited by8 opinions
- Colchester Fire District No. 2 v. SharrowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
- General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. City of Rocky MountDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1995
- Wall v. City of DurhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Ricks v. Town of SelmaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Cedar Greene, LLC v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.