Cases

485 S.E.2d 278 (1997) CITY OF CONCORD, a Municipal Corporation v. DUKE POWER COMPANY, a Domestic Corporation. No. 196PA96. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 6, 1997. *279 Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P. by S. Ellis Hankins and Nancy Bentson Essex, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee. Duke Power Company by Jeff D. Griffith, II

JOHNSON, Judge. Plaintiff City of Concord (City) is a municipal corporation in Cabarrus County chartered under the laws of North Carolina. Plaintiff owns and operates an electrical distribution system through which it transmits, sells and generally provides electric service to electric power customers. Defendant Duke Power Company (Duke) is a public utility corporation engaged in furnishing electric service to customers in th

PHILLIPS, Judge. This dispute is over the right to provide electric service to property in the City of Morganton on which the Bush-Denny automobile dealership is situated. The case is governed by the 1965 Electric Act (G.S. 62-110.2, G.S. 160A-331 to 160A-338), which was enacted at the behest of virtually all the State’s suppliers of electric power. Domestic Electric Service, Inc. v. City of Rocky Mount, 285 N.C. 135

317 S.E.2d 701 (1984) DUKE POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, et al. No. 8318SC776. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. July 3, 1984. *703 Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, by Daniel W. Fouts and W. Winburne King, III, Greensboro, for plaintiff. Spruill, Lane, Carlton, McCotter & Jolly, by John R. Jolly, J

317 S.E.2d 699 (1984) DUKE POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, et al. No. 8318SC775. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. July 3, 1984. *700 Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, by Daniel W. Fouts, W. Winburne King, III, and Thomas W. Brawner, Greensboro, for plaintiff. Spruill, Lane, Carlton, McCotter & Jolly,

EDMUNDS, Justice. In this matter, we consider the extent to which federal law has preempted the authority of the North Carolina Utilities Commission over proposed contracts involving sales of electricity by North Carolina utilities to wholesale customers in interstate commerce. *518Because we hold that the power to review such proposed contracts is consistent with the

588 S.E.2d 77 (2003) STATE of North Carolina ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION, Public Staff -North Carolina Utilities Commission, Attorney General, Roy Cooper, Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc., Carolina Industrial Groups for Fair Utility Rates I and II, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a North Carolina Power, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, Inc., Appellees, v. CAROLI

Affirmed by published .opinion. Judge-Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge Floyd joined. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: When Robin Fleming flew his glider plane over the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant—operated by Duke Energy Progress, Inc., in Darlington County, South Carolina—and then began circling repe

EAST CAMP, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARRY SPRUILL, SHARON SPRUILL, and SCUPPERNONG FARM, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. No. COA08-1081. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Filed June 2, 2009. This case not for publication Windy H. Rose for Plaintiff-Appellee. Miller and Shedor, PLLC, by Marty E. Miller, for Defendants-Appellants. <

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Appellant-Respondent, v. South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, Hasala Dharmawardena, CMC Recycling, Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC, South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, Sierra Club, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, South Carolina Energy Users Committee, South Carolina Solar Business Alliance, Inc., South Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancem

786 F.Supp.2d 887 (2011) Ryan McFADYEN, Matthew Wilson and Breck Archer, Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. No. 1:07CV953. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. March 31, 2011. *898 Robert C. Ekstrand, Ekstrand & Ekstrand, LLP, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs. Jamie S. Gorelick, Jennifer M. O'C

STROUD, Judge. The Town of Smithfleld (“Smithfleld”), a municipality and electric provider, appeals an order entered by the Utilities Commission on or about 27 December 2012 denying approval to an agreement between it and Carolina Power & Light Company, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (“Progress”) that allocated rights to serve certain areas within the Town of Smithfleld. For the following reasons, we affirm. <

WYNN, Judge. Non-discriminatory state regulations that "effectuate a legitimate local public interest" and incidentally burden interstate commerce "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-913 No. COA22-160 Filed 29 December 2022 Durham County, No. 18 CVS 3806 ANTHONY TERRY, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, and WILLIAM V. LUCAS, Defendant. Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 21 September 2021 by J

826 F.Supp. 1549 (1993) SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant. DUKE POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. A. Nos. 2:90-0598-1, 2:90-0599-1 and 2:90-0636-01. United States District

171 S.E.2d 343 (1969) 7 N.C. App. 100 Jimmy Ray SUTTON v. Marvin DUKE, Kinston Fertilizer Company, and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. No. 698SC560. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. December 31, 1969. Certiorari Allowed March 3, 1970. *345 Lewis & Rouse, by Robert D. Rouse, Jr

176 S.E.2d 161 (1970) 277 N.C. 94 Jimmy Ray SUTTON v. Marvin DUKE, Kinston Fertilizer Company, and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. No. 40. Supreme Court of North Carolina. August 28, 1970. *163 Lewis & Rouse, Farmville, for plaintiff appellant. Barden, Stith, McCotter & Sugg, New Bern,

Justice HUDSON concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority’s holding that the use of the word “party” in N.C.G.S. § 99B-3(a) does not limit that defense to alterations or modifications by parties to the lawsuit. Because I disagree with the majority’s decision to address additional issues, and particularly the majority’s assertion that, from the evidence

643 S.E.2d 58 (2007) Robert MORRISON, Employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Employer, and Key Risk Management Services, Servicing Agent, Defendants-Appellees. No. COA06-749. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. April 17, 2007. Scudder & Hedrick, by Alice Tejada, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant. Smith Law Fir

ORDER ROBERT D. POTTER, Chief Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.1 INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Government Defendants have violated Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. § 825s, by failing to give preference to its service ar