Legal Opinion

Hundley v. Michael

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1992No. 9118SC317PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALKER, Judge.

In their first assignment of error, defendants contend the trial court erred in concluding plaintiffs are entitled to make full use of the property within the easement as long as plaintiffs do not interfere with defendants’ access to Lot 2.

In asserting that plaintiffs have no right to make use of the property within Pat’s Place Lane, defendants rely upon Rollinwood Homeowners Association v. Jarman, Inc., 92 N.C.App. 724, 375 S.E.2d 700 (1989). In that case, a fifteen foot easement for the purposes of “placing and maintaining landscaping and shrubbery” existed in favor of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chesson v. . JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. Hine v. BlumenthalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Hales v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  4. Rollinwood Homeowners Ass'n v. JarmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Brown v. Weaver-Rogers Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Z.A. Sneeden's Sons, Inc. v. ZP No. 116, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  3. Bedard v. ScherrerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. The Town of Carrboro v. SlackCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  5. Edwards v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API