Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Shoemaker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 6, 1970No. 7026DC153PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraham, J.

Plaintiff contends that she has sufficiently stated a first cause of action under either of two theories: (1) The rental contract was il legal and unenforceable because the dwelling rented was maintained in violation of the Housing Code of the City of Charlotte and was unfit for human habitation. (2) Defendants, in renting plaintiff a substandard and unfit dwelling, breached various material warranties implied in the rental contract and thereby constructively evicted plaintiff from the dwelling.

In our opinion neither theory will support recovery in this case because the cause of action…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Edgerton v. . PageNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  2. Jordan v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Tucker v. Park Yarn Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Simms v. . VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  5. Hudson v. Singleton Silk Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. McNamara v. Wilmington Mall Realty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  2. R. G. McClung Cotton Co. v. Cotton Concentration Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1972
  3. Miller v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Lenz v. Ridgewood AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Clarke v. KerchnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API