Legal Opinion
State Highway & Public Works Commission v. Hartley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided November 7, 1940PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
It is conceded that the measure of damages, presently applicable, is the difference in the fair market value of respondent’s land immediately before and immediately after the taking. Elks v. Comrs., 179 N. C., 241, 102 S. E., 414. The items going to make up this difference are understood to embrace compensation for the part taken, and injury to the remainder, which is to be offset by any general and special benefits accruing to the landowner from the construction of the Parkway. Bailey v. Highway Com., 214 N. C., 278, 199 S. E., 25; Wade v. Highway Com., 188 N. C., 210, 124 S. E., 193; Power…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Brown v. . Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Oregon R. & N. Co. v. EastlackOregon Supreme Court · 1909
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Tennessee Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Proctor v. Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.