Legal Opinion

Stout v. City of Durham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1996No. COA95-13PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, John C., Judge.

In separately filed, but essentially identical complaints, plaintiffs alleged that defendant City of Durham had given notice of its intent to acquire by condemnation portions of their respective properties for construction of a proposed sewer outfall. Plaintiffs alleged that the condemnation was being undertaken for a private, rather than public, purpose and that they intended to assert the City’s lack of authority to condemn their property as a defense to the threatened condemnation action. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to restrain the vesting of title and right…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. City of Charlotte v. HeathSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Huggins v. Wake County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. North Carolina Department of Economic & Community DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. McLeodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Retail Designs, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of HighwaysWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. TOWN OF MIDLAND v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  3. Tucker v. City of KannapolisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  4. Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring LakesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  5. City of Asheville v. Resurgence Development Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013

1 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