Legal Opinion

O'Neal v. . Rollinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 22, 1937PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWinbobne, J.

Two questions of law arise on the fact situation of this case: (1) Was the court correct in holding that the riparian ownership of plaintiffs and defendants is determined by drawing parallel lines from the property lines of each owner at right angles or perpendicular to the shore line, and extending directly to the edge of deep water, or the channel? (2) If so, are the plaintiffs entitled to mandatory injunction? Both questions are answered in the affirmative. The authorities support the judgment below.

In Bond v. Wool, 107 N. C., 139, a controversy between two riparian owners, neither having…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bond v. . WoolSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. Kinsland v. . KinslandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. Manufacturers' Land & Improvement Co. v. Board of Commerce & Navigation & Southwark Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1923

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Pine Knoll Association, Inc. v. CardonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  2. Bishop v. ReinholdCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Gaither v. Albemarle Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. Capune v. RobbinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Young v. LicaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003

8 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