Court Opinion

ID: 9535762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:52:40.248077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:19.632986
License: Public Domain

Grosse, J.
(concurring) — I concur but write separately to highlight the fact that my agreement with the majority is conditional. The ultimate resolution of this case—that the developer must pay—turns on the fact that on this record it is undisputed that “[t]he only reason the poles have *958to be moved is so the plat may proceed.” In my opinion, in every case of this kind, it is a question of fact as to who is the primary beneficiary of the relocation of the utility. If it is the public at large, then the utility must pay. If it is a private party, then that party must pay.
Reconsideration denied January 5, 1999.