Legal Opinion
Redevelopment Commission of Hendersonville v. Hyder
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided December 19, 1973No. 7329SC762PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
Petitioner, Redevelopment Commission of Hendersonville, takes the position that the attorney fees for property owners which were fixed by the court as a part of the costs in this case to be paid by the Commission are excessive and unreasonable. Petitioner contends that the findings of fact of the trial court are not supported by competent evidence and do not themselves justify the fees awarded.
In Hicks v. Albertson, 284 N.C. 236, 200 S.E. 2d 40, we have this succinct statement of the law with respect to the award of attorney fees:
“ ‘The general rule in this State is that, in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hicks v. AlbertsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Redevelopment Commission v. Security National Bank of GreensboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Dumas v. KingCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1946
- In Re the Appeal of KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Morton County Board of Park Commissioners v. WetschNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Hill v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- West ex rel. Farris v. TilleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Redevelopment Commission of Winston-Salem v. WeathermanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.