NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-75 (2026)
Burden of proof
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 62
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise limited in this Chapter, in all proceedings instituted by the Commission for the purpose of investigating any rate, service, classification, rule, regulation or practice, the burden of proof shall be upon the public utility whose rate, service, classification, rule, regulation or practice is under investigation to show that the same is just and reasonable. In all other proceedings the burden of proof shall be upon the complainant. (1949, c. 989, s. 1; 1963, c. 1165, s. 1; 1985, c. 676, s. 8.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1966–2020 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Se., 189 S.E.2d 705 (N.C. 1972).
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Se., 189 S.E.2d 705 (N.C. 1972). “The Court of Appeals held this was error. The city contends the full amount of the excess, as shown in the testimony of Mr.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Bird Oil Co., 273 S.E.2d 232 (N.C. 1981). “G.S. § 62-75 (1975); accord, State ex rel.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Duke Power Co., 206 S.E.2d 269 (N.C. 1974). “” If such evidence be necessary in order to enable the Commission to give appropriate weight to those two indicators, which we think is clearly not the meaning of the statute, the absence of such evidence in the record does not benefit Duke, for the burden is upon Duke to…”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 148 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1966). “G.S. 62-75; Utilities Commission v. Coach Co.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Mebane Home Tel. Co., 257 S.E.2d 623 (N.C. 1979). “G.S. 62-75, 62-134(c); Utilities Commission v.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Cent. Tel. Co., 299 S.E.2d 264 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983). “Before deciding the issue in this case, we note that the Utilities Commission has broad authority over regulated utilities in North Carolina under G.S. 62-30 and -32.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 291 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). “, make it clear that the elimination of yellow pages revenues in this case would require an additional $14,000,000 in annual gross revenues from Bell’s North Carolina customers. It is appropriate to note at this point that Bell has the burden of showing that the changes in…”
State Ex Rel. North Carolina Utils. Comm'n v. S. Ry. Co., 148 S.E.2d 210 (N.C. 1966). ““G.S. 62-75. Burden of Proof. —In all proceedings instituted by the Commission for the purpose of investigating any rate, service, classification, rule, regulation or practice, the burden of proof shall be upon the public utility whose rate, service, classification, rule,…”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n & Carolina Trace Corp. v. Pub. Staff-North Carolina Utils. Comm'n, 424 S.E.2d 133 (N.C. 1993). “G.S. 62-75; G.S. 62-134(c). Utilities Comm.”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Nello L. Teer Co., 146 S.E.2d 511 (N.C. 1966). “G.S. 62-75. Since the cost data and other circumstances concerning justification for the differential in rates of which Teer complains are more readily available to the participating railroads than they are to a complaining shipper, it may well be thought that in such…”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 210 S.E.2d 543 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975). “G.S. 62-75; G.S. 62-134 (c). By its assignments of error, Southern Bell contends the Commission erred in the following respects: (1) in setting the rate of return at 7.”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 150 S.E.2d 386 (N.C. 1966). “* * *” G.S. 62-75 provides that in all proceedings before the Commission, except those instituted by the Commission, itself, the burden of proof shall be upon “the complainant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.