McAdoo v. City of Greensboro
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs first contend the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant because the inverse condemnation claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations are inflexible and unyielding. Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Odell Associates, 61 N.C. App. 350, 301 S.E. 2d 459, disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 319, 306 S.E. 2d 791 (1983). The statute of limitations for inverse condemnation actions is defined in G.S. 40A-51(a), which in pertinent part states:
The action may be initiated within 24 months of the date of the taking of the affected…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Long v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Lea Co. v. North Carolina Board of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Railroad v. OliveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Morris v. West Virginia Racing CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Robertson v. City of High PointCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- Central Carolina Developers, Inc. v. Moore Water & Sewer AuthorityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Peach v. City of High PointCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Ashley Park Charlotte Associates v. City of CharlotteDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1993
- Cty. of Moore v. AcresCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.