By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 15,2011
CGM LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. The 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of a suit filed by a billing agent for local telecommunications carriers against BellSouth, the incumbent local exchange carrier, as plaintiff billing agent does not have statutory standing to bring this suit.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 4,2011
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Environmental Defense Fund G.S. § 62-133.8(a) defines “renewable energy resource” to include “a biomass resource, including agricultural waste, animal waste, wood waste, spent pulping liquors, combustible residues, combustible liquids, combustible gases, energy crops, or landfill methane.” This definition includes primary harvest trees. We affirm the Utilities Commission’s approval of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s application to register two of its thermal electric generating stations - where a blend of wood chips and coal were used as fuel — as renewable energy facilities.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 13,2011
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis G.S. § 62-350 requires a town that owns utility poles to negotiate in good faith with utility providers who wish to attach their cables to the town’s utility poles; in this case, plaintiff has made no showing that the town failed to do so. The town is entitled to partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that the town refused to negotiate. The town’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s claim that the town violated the nondiscrimination requirements of G.S. § 62-350.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 23,2010
In re Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's Advance Notice of Purchase Power Agreement. Duke Energy proposed selling energy to the S.C. town of Orangeburg, and the N.C. Utilities Commission ruled on the proposal. Duke and Orangeburg appealed, but then Orangeburg voluntarily withdrew from the proposed energy contract. This appeal is moot, and we decline to address the commission's ruling under either the public interest or the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrines. Appeal dismissed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 25,2010
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority v. Costa. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-07-0659, 17 pp.) (Donna S. Stroud, J.) (Cheri Beasley, J., dissenting) Appealed from New Hanover County Superior Court. (Paul G. Gessner, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Expert testimony from an attorney and a surveyor was inadmissible in a dispute over the existence of a sewer easement because [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: May 31,2010
Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-16-0481, 9 pp.) (Barbara Jackson, J.) Appealed from Brunswick County Superior Court. (Ola M. Lewis, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Even though defendant has a duty to periodically inspect its accessible power lines, plaintiffs failed to show that defendant has a duty to periodically dig up and inspect [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: December 21,2009
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Town of Kill Devil Hills. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-06-1128, 2 pp.) (Per Curiam) From the Court of Appeals. N.C. S. Ct. Holding: Where our Court of Appeals held, Even though G.S. Sect. 62-106 – enacted in 1991 – explicitly says the Utilities Commission has the power to preempt local ordinances [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: January 12,2009
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Town of Kill Devil Hills. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0002, 27 pp.) (Robert Hunter, J.) (Barbara Jackson, J., dissenting) Appealed from the Utilities Commission. N.C. App. Holding: Even though G.S. 62-106 – enacted in 1991 – explicitly says the Utilities Commission has the power to preempt local ordinances to allow for [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: September 29,2008
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries v. Carolina Power & Light Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 08-15-1109, 15 pp.) (John R. Jolly Jr., J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: A contract’s near elimination of liability for a power company and its subcontractors is upheld because the contract was approved by the N.C. Utilities Commission; therefore, the contract is protected from [...]
By dmc-admin
Published: October 9,2006
Where the Progress Energy met its initial burden of proving that it had examined alternative routes and that its preferred route was reasonable and in the public interest, the Utilities Commission properly assigned to the intervenors the burden of proving that “an alternative route studied by the utility is preferable to that proposed or that [...]
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
State v. Williams Although the bail-bond surety located and surrendered defendant to the sheriff on the 150th day after her failure to appear, the surety did so at 9:40 p.m., after the courthouse had closed for the day. We do not agree that the 150-day period set out in G.S. § 15A-544.5 extends until 11:59 p.m. on the 150th day.
Workplace strife is increasingly boiling over into the realms of social media. But when employees rant about their bosses on Facebook and badmouth the companies they work for on Twitter, what are the repercussions?
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
