{
  "id": 8526262,
  "name": "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duke Power Co. v. City of High Point",
  "decision_date": "1984-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 8318SC775",
  "first_page": "335",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 N.C. App. 335"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572614
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 761",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570895
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562562
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4764743
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0726-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 S.E. 2d 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2404374
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0302-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 5840,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.172768950710949e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5089578581608426
    },
    "sha256": "ca2858953d3a87fd7e0fb4bc2df410956867013054af1e2d593d29c1e5894bd4",
    "simhash": "1:a2b6d03e3c29bce9",
    "word_count": 939
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:04.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Braswell and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nI.\nG.S. 160A-312 has been established as the sole legislative authority for and only restriction upon municipalities furnishing electric service outside their corporate limits. See State ex rel Utilities Comm. v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 310 N.C. 302, 311 S.E. 2d 586 (1984); Lumbee River Electric Corp. v. City of Fayetteville, 309 N.C. 726, 309 S.E. 2d 209 (1983); Electric Service v. City of Rocky Mount, 285 N.C. 135, 203 S.E. 2d 838 (1974).\nThe first sentence of G.S. 160A-312 provides: \u201cA city shall have authority to acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, operate and contract for the operation of any or all of the public enterprises as defined in this Article to furnish services to the city and its citizens.\u201d We interpret this sentence as granting the City absolute authority, without limitation or restriction, to extend electric service to its city-owned facilities in this case.\nThe second sentence of G.S. 160A-312 grants a city limited, rather than absolute authority to extend electric service to private customers outside city limits. Pursuant to the second sentence of G.S. 160A-312, a city proposed extension of electric service must be \u201cwithin reasonable limitations.\u201d It is this basis of authority that we relied on in the companion case, filed simultaneously herewith, authorizing the City to extend electric service in order to provide street lights outside city limits. Duke Power v. City of High Point #2 (filed 3 July 1984).\nThe second sentence of G.S. 160A-312 has no application here, where the City proposes to extend service in order to serve itself. Duke\u2019s argument, therefore, that the City\u2019s extension would exceed reasonable limitations is without merit.\nIn light of the City\u2019s absolute right to serve itself, we affirm the trial court order authorizing the extension of east side electric lines by the City.\nII.\nIt is well-established that an injunction will be granted only when irreparable injury is both real and immediate. See Membership Corp. v. Light Co., 256 N.C. 56, 122 S.E. 2d 761 (1961). Injunctive relief is premised on an injury actually threatened and practically certain, not one anticipated and merely probable. Hooks v. Speedways, Inc., 263 N.C. 686, 140 S.E. 2d 387 (1965).\nDuke has not shown that the prospective loss of potential customers outside city limits was an injury warr\u00e1nting injunctive relief. In Finding of Fact Number 25, the trial court found:\nWhile it is not uncommon for cities maintaining their own electric distribution systems to serve power customers outside their corporate limits, no evidence was presented at trial tending to indicate that the City presently is considering serving any specific electric customers other than itself, and no evidence was presented tending to indicate that the City presently intends to acquire new customers along the line extensions to the East Side Plant.\nSince a judgment should adjudicate the basic legal rights of the parties in view of present and not anticipated facts, Membership Corp. v. Light Co., supra, we vacate that portion of the judgment enjoining the City from serving customers from its east side electric lines, other than city-owned facilities and public enterprises. We note, however, that the City\u2019s future rights if it desires to serve private customers outside the City from its east side electric lines will be governed by the reasonable limitation standard contained in the second sentence of G.S. 160A-312.\nAffirmed in part.\nVacated in part.\nJudges Braswell and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fonts, by Daniel W. Fonts, W. Winbume King, III, and Thomas W. Brawner, for plaintiff",
      "Spruill, Lane, Carlton, McCotter & Jolly, by John R. Jolly, Jr., Ernie K. Murray, and J. Phil Carlton, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, et al.\nNo. 8318SC775\n(Filed 3 July 1984)\n1. Electricity \u00a7 2.3\u2014 city\u2019s extension of electric lines \u2014 service of city facilities\nThe first sentence of G.S. 160A-312 granted a city the absolute authority, without limitation or restriction, to extend electric service to its city-owned facilities outside the city limits. The second sentence of G.S. 160A-312 providing that a city proposed extension of electric service must be \u201cwithin reasonable limitations\u201d has no application where the city proposes to extend service in order to serve itself.\n2. Injunctions \u00a7 2.1\u2014 failure to show irreparable injury\nThe trial court erred in enjoining a city from serving private customers by electric lines extended to city facilities outside the city limits where there was no evidence that the city presently intends to serve private customers with such lines, since there was no showing of a real and immediate irreparable injury.\nAppeal by plaintiff and defendant from Hob good, Hamilton, Judge. Judgment entered 24 February 1983 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 May 1984.\nDuke Power Company (Duke) appeals from an order authorizing the City of High Point (the City) to extend electric lines outside city limits in order to serve a pollution control plant, a police academy, and a garbage pulverizer plant, all owned and operated by the City. Prior to this action, Duke had been providing electric service to all three city facilities, located just east of the city limits.\nThe City appeals from that part of the order enjoining it from serving private customers outside city limits, using its newly constructed east side electric lines.\nWe interpret in this opinion G.S. 160A-312 as it affects a City\u2019s right to extend electric service outside its corporate limits. For reasons herein set forth, we affirm that part of the order authorizing the City to serve its own facilities and vacate that part of the order enjoining the City from serving other potential customers.\nAdams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fonts, by Daniel W. Fonts, W. Winbume King, III, and Thomas W. Brawner, for plaintiff\nSpruill, Lane, Carlton, McCotter & Jolly, by John R. Jolly, Jr., Ernie K. Murray, and J. Phil Carlton, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0335-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 366
}