Legal Opinion
Rodin v. Merritt
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided August 5, 1980No. 7915SC639PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs’ one assignment of error is directed to the court’s ruling that the agreement is void and unenforceable as a matter of law. Plaintiffs contend that the agreement is not violative of the rule against perpetuities. We agree.
Under the terms of the contract, “Seller agrees to sell and convey, and the Purchaser agrees to purchase all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Township of Chapel Hill, State of North Carolina, being more particularly described in Schedule A, annexed…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Wong v. Di GraziaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Johnson v. PrestonIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Starcher Bros. v. DutyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Haggerty v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Dallapi v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- PCS Phosphate Co., Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- Ryland Group, Inc. v. WillsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1985
- Rodin v. MerrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Maxwell v. Michael P. Doyle, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Matter of Estate of PateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.