Virginia Electic & Power Co. v. Tillett
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
Respondents assign error to the entry of summary judgment for petitioners and state their first argument as follows: “Was the trial court precluded from ruling ‘as a matter of law’ that respondents had no interest in the locus in quo when petitioner had judicially admitted that respondents owned an undivided interest in the locus?"
This argument is based on the fact that VEPCO on several different occasions admitted that respondents owned some portion of the 9.565 acre tract of land over which VEPCO was seeking an easement by condemnation for the purpose of constructing its power…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boyce v. McMahanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Collins v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- City of Charlotte v. SprattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro v. HaginsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. TillettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- In Re Adoption of SearleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985