State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 72 N.C. App. 205 - Loeb v. Loeb (1985), State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co. (1985)
1 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · State v. Fulcher · State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten · Stevenson v. City of Durham · State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the Southeast
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n ascertaining the legislative intent, courts should consider the language of the statute, the spirit of the statute, * and what it seeks to accomplish”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is ultimately the duty of courts to construe administrative statutes; courts cannot defer that responsibility to the agency charged with administering those statutes.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From our review of the language, purpose and history of the repealed G.S. § 62-134(e), we conclude that the Legislature intended that the Utilities Commission consider in the fuel adjustment proceedings only fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas— used by the utility in the production of electric power in its own generating units. The Legislature did not intend to include in the expedited hearing proceedings the my-raid of issues relating to purchased or interchange power which necessarily require closer scrutiny. Subsequent action by the Legislature in enacting G.S. § 62-133.2, which makes express provision for the consideration of such issues in the general rate cases, has now made its intent clear.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.