Lexington-South Elkhorn Water District v. City of Wilmore, Kentucky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that although Lexington — S. Elkhorn was “offering to provide water service to customers located within the Water District’s boundaries,” it did not violate the statute because the water district was neither licensed to reach those customers nor had the facilities to do so
• noting that 1926(b) is given a liberal interpretation to protect rural water districts
• noting that proximity of water lines to the disputed area is a key factor in the making service available determination because Kentucky law requires obtaining a state-issued certificate and then making reasonable extensions of water lines to serve customer requests
• looking to Kentucky law establishing certification prerequisites for water districts to provide service in an area to determine where a water district has “made service available”
• stating that the purpose of Section 1926(b) is to “encourage rural water development by expanding the number of potential users and to safeguard the financial viability or rural association and [United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development] loans”
• noting that proximity of water lines to the disputed area is a key factor in the making service available determination because Kentucky law requires obtaining a state-issued certificate and then making reasonable extensions of water lines to serve customer requests

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).