Legal Opinion

Berta v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 20, 1978No. 7729SC665PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, Judge.

Did the trial court err in denying appellants’ motion to intervene in this action? We hold that it did not.

Appellants concede that if this action had been instituted by defendant pursuant to G.S. 136-104, they would have no right to intervene since that statute provides that title vests in the Board of Transportation when it files the complaint and declaration of taking and deposits the estimated amount of compensation with the court.

They argue, however, that when the action is for inverse condemnation under G.S. 136-111, the statute controlling this case, title does not vest in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  2. Brooks Investment Co. v. City of BloomingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. Caveness v. Charlotte, Raleigh & Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  4. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Whiting Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Harrington v. HarringtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Employees' Credit Union, Inc. v. GentryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  3. Hatfield v. WrayOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Dep't of Transp. v. StimpsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  5. Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API