Legal Opinion

Dunlap v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1938PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Barnhill, J".

Tbe plaintiff does not allege, except by inference, that the plant of the defendant is operated in a negligent or careless manner. If the complaint be construed as alleging a- cause' of action based on negligence the same is not sustained by the evidence, for there is no evidence of any negligent operation by the defendant. Nor does the plaintiff allege any improper or negligent or unskillful design or construction of defendant’s plant, nor is there any allegation that defendant’s plant is in excess of the size and capacity of the stream. This limits our consideration to two…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Parker v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
  2. Durham v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Meyer v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. State v. . GlenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1859
  5. Rouse v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Bruton v. . Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Pendergrast v. AikenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Bruton v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. McGuinn v. . High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Board of Transportation v. Terminal Warehouse Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

12 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