1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 239 S.E.2d
  5. 239 S.E.2d 266 (1977)
 

STATE EX REL. UTIL. COMM. v. UNITED TANK LINES

No. 7710UC74.

239 S.E.2d 266 (1977)

34 N.C. App. 543

STATE of North Carolina ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION and Eastern Oil Transport, Inc., Complainant (and Kenan Transport Company, O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., M & M Tank Lines, Inc., Black's Motor Express, Inc., Petroleum Transportation, Inc., Terminal City Transport, Inc., A. C. Widenhouse, Inc. and East Coast Transport, Inc.), (Complainants) Appellees, v. UNITED TANK LINES, INC., and S. H. Mitchell and Son, (Defendants) Appellants. STATE of North Carolina ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION, show cause proceeding by Commission, Appellee, v. UNITED TANK LINES, INC., Appellant. STATE of North Carolina ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION, Petition for Authority to Sell and Transfer Controlling Outstanding and Issued Capital Stock of United Tank Lines, Inc. from Roy C. Harrison to S. H. Mitchell and W. N. Mitchell, (Applicants) Appellants, v. KENAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., M & M Tank Lines, Inc., Black's Motor Express, Inc., Petroleum Transportation, Inc., Terminal City Transport, Inc., A. C. Widenhouse, Inc., East Coast Transport, Inc. and Eastern Oil Transport, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

December 7, 1977.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Commission Atty. Edward B. Hipp and Asst. Commission Atty. Theodore C. Brown, Raleigh, for North Carolina Utilities Commission, appellee.

Allen, Steed & Allen by Thomas W. Steed, Jr., and Arch T. Allen, III, Raleigh, for Kenan Transport Company, O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., Black's Motor Express, Inc., Petroleum Transportation, Inc., Terminal City Transport, Inc., A. C. Widenhouse, Inc., and East Coast Transport, Inc., appellees.

Eugene C. Brooks, III, Durham, for Eastern Oil Transport, Inc., appellee.

Vaughn S. Winborne, Raleigh, for appellants.

BRITT, Judge.

While respondent-appellants argue 12 questions in their brief, we think the disposition of this appeal rests on the answers to two questions: (1) Did the Utilities Commission err in its findings of fact? (2) Was the action taken by the Commission pursuant to the findings authorized? We answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.

It is settled in this jurisdiction that findings of fact by the Utilities...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases