Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Moss

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 29, 1941PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1ConcurrenceClarkson, J.

The petitioner has not taken and does not seek to take any part of the property of any one of the respondents except a right of way or easement for the tunnel which passes across the land of the respondent Ida Moss. It only seeks the right to divert the waters of Tuckaseegee River which passes along the boundary line of the respective respondents and to have the compensation to be paid therefor fixed and determined. And it is conceded that as the property line of each respondent extends to the thread of the stream each is a riparian owner affected by the diversion of the waters of such…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  5. Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1910

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. State v. JenningsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Kirby v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
  4. Byers v. . ByersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

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

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

Powered by the Exa API