By The Associated Press
Published: December 3,2012
Duke Energy formalized deals Monday that ended separate investigations by North Carolina regulators and the attorney general into whether the utility misled officials before a merger that made it the country's largest electric company.
By The Associated Press
Published: November 13,2012
Pressure could increase on North Carolina utilities regulators to justify decisions to charge customers hundreds of millions of dollars more as part of a case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.
By The Associated Press
Published: July 19,2012
The ousted CEO of America's largest electric company is telling North Carolina regulators that Duke Energy Corp. wanted to scrap its just-completed merger after a federal agency insisted it do more to protect competition.
By The Associated Press
Published: July 3,2012
Duke Energy Corp. and Progress Energy Inc. said Tuesday they had completed their merger now valued at about $32 billion to form the nation's largest electric company. But the normally routine event came with a twist.
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
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.
Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
