South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Mar 6, 2026

Public Utilities – Operating as a Public Utility – Billing Tenants Via Third-Party Contractor

Apartment owners’ billing and allocation of water and sewer costs through a third-party contractor did not constitute operation as a public utility. We affirmed the orders of the Public Service […]

Sep 11, 2023

Public Utilities – Ratemaking – Multiple Appeals – Reparations Surcharge – Appeals Bond or Other Arrangements

It took several appeals and several years for the appellant-utility to finally get the rate increase amount it had requested (though in a different configuration). Although the utility asserts that […]

Jan 15, 2019

SC regulators change minds, rule utility misled them

South Carolina regulators have changed their minds and ruled that a private utility did intentionally withhold information and mislead them about a project to build a pair of nuclear reactors […]

Nov 14, 2018

SC Supreme Court considering utility dispute

South Carolina’s highest court is suggesting Gov. Henry McMaster and state lawmakers work together on the fallout from a state-owned utility’s part in a failed nuclear project. The Post and […]

Oct 20, 2017

Antitrust – State Action Immunity – Public Utilities – Santee Cooper – Supra-competitive Prices

Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service Authority (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-171-17, 20 pp.) (Richard Mark Gergel, J.) 2:17-cv-00274; D.S.C. Holding: Where the defendant-electric utility has […]

Nov 4, 2016

Real Property – Public Utilities – Prescriptive Easements – Adverse Use – Claim of Right – Open & Notorious

Simmons v. Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-082-16, 12 pp.) (Donald Beatty, Acting Chief Justice) Appealed from Charleston County (Mikell Scarborough, Master-in-Equity) On writ of certiorari to the […]

May 2, 2016

Civil Practice – Federal Question Jurisdiction – Public Utilities – Hydroelectric Power – Water Release – Flooding – Tort/Negligence

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-084-16, 18 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 3:15-cv-04660; D.S.C. Holding: Plaintiffs’ negligence claim – that their house was flooded […]

May 2, 2016

Tort/Negligence – Public Utilities – Downed Power Line – NESC Compliance – Gunshot

Nespeca v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-083-16, 11 pp.) (Mary Geiger Lewis, J.) 7:15-cv-00222; D.S.C. Holding: Even though a downed power line caused a fire that damaged […]

Feb 8, 2016

Real Property – Public Utilities – Cable TV – Trunk Line – Tenant’s Permission

Johnson v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-023-16, 9 pp.) (Cameron McGowan Currie, J.) 3:15-cv-01727; D.S.C. Holding: There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether […]

Aug 10, 2012

Taxation – Public Utilities – ‘Telephone Company’ – Cell Phone Service Providers – Statutory Ambiguity

Alltel Communications, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue S.C. Code Ann. § 12-20-100 imposes higher license fees on certain companies, including every “telephone company.” Since the statute does not define “telephone company”, it is ambiguous. We construe the ambiguity in favor of the petitioner-taxpayers – cellular telephone service providers – and rule that the st[...]

Jul 11, 2012

Civil Practice – Class Action Certification Motion – Denied – Individual Issues Predominate – Real Property – Public Utilities – Easements

Dutton v. Carolina Power & Light Co. Defendant has been granted several types of easements, and defendant gave notice, by various methods, that it was using its electric power easements for general telecommunications purposes. Individual issues predominate as to what use is allowed by the various types of easements and as to whether property owners received notice of the use of the easeme[...]

Jul 11, 2012

Real Property – Easements – Contract – Unjust Enrichment – Matters Outside Easement – Public Utilities

Dutton v. Carolina Power & Light Co. Even though there is an express contract between the parties – an easement – since plaintiff contends that defendant is using the easement for purposes not covered by the easement, plaintiff has made out a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.