Home / Opinion Digest / Public Utilities

Public Utilities

Feed Subscription

Public Utilities – Municipal – Cable Attachments – Utility Poles – Unreasonable Rates & Terms – Constitutional – Separation of Powers (access required)

Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-15-0645, 27 pp.) (Calvin Murphy, J.) 2014 NCBC 25 Holding: The defendant-town’s proposal to raise its annual per-pole attachment rate from $3.00 to $18.00 is unreasonable in that ...

Read More »

Public Utilities – Electric Membership Corporation – Pole Attachments – Cable Company – Rates (access required)

Rutherford Electric Membership Corp. v. Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-15-0498, 30 pp.) (Calvin Murphy, J.) 2014 NCBC 20 Holding: When calculating what to charge the defendant-cable company to attach its cables to the plaintiff-electric membership corporation’s ...

Read More »

Public Utilities – Corporate – Merger – Benefits to Retail Ratepayers – Civil Practice – Appeals — Standing (access required)

In re Application of Duke Energy Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-07-0193, 30 pp.) (Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from the Utilities Commission. N.C. App. Holding: No single document entitled “cost-benefit analysis” was presented by the applicants quantifying the known and potential ...

Read More »

Public Utilities – Electricity – Municipal — Agreements for Service – Statutory Construction — G.S. § 160A-331.2(a (access required)

G.S. § 160A-331.2(a) only authorizes electric service agreements between electric utilities and municipalities wherein the parties allocate to each other the right to provide electric service to premises each would not have the right to serve under Article 16 but for the agreement.

Read More »

Public Utilities – Satellite TV – Boxing Match – Restaurant Broadcast – Residential Price (access required)

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Jorkay, LLC Although defendants did not realize they were violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 when they ordered the Mayweather/Marquez boxing match through their commercial DirecTV account and then broadcast the fight at their restaurant, defendants paid only the $59.95 residential cost of the program and failed to pay the commercial sublicensing fee required to lawfully show the event at their restaurant. Section 605 imposes strict liability for violations.

Read More »
Scroll To Top