Fulghum v. Town of Selma
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtErvin, J.
There may be more than a modicum of truth in tbe assertion of tbe plaintiffs tbat tbe defendant enacted tbe ordinance and its amendment for tbe coercive purpose of inducing Eulgbum to abandon bis water service to tbe inhabitants of Selma Mill Village and transfer bis pipe lines to tbe defendant at less than their value. Be this as it may, we must remember tbat bard cases are tbe quicksands of tbe law and confine ourselves to our appointed task of declaring tbe legal rights of tbe parties.
Tbe crucial question raised by tbe appeal is this: Does tbe evidence of tbe plaintiffs suffice to show…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Childs v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Joliet Bottling Co. v. Joliet Citizens' Brewing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1912
- Atlantic Construction Co. v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Brand v. Water CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Barish v. Chrysler CorporationNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Glenn-Robinson v. AckerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- In Re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Delony v. RuckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Dale Ex Rel. Dale v. City of MorgantonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.