State ex rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Carolina Coach Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1ConcurrenceDeviN, J.
The evidence set out in the record was amply sufficient to sustain the findings of the Utilities Commission, and equally so, on appeal, to support the judgment of the Superior Court. dismissing protestant’s case.
The statute (G. S., 62-21) declaring that the determination of the Commission shall be “prima facie just and reasonable” established a rebuttable presumption — a rule of evidence. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 236 U. S., 412. Whether the presentation of the Commission’s decision imposed upon appellant the burden of proof, or of going forward, the findings of the judge, who by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley RRSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Butts v. . ScrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Utilities Com. v. . Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Scenic Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940