Legal Opinion · Dissent

Switzerland Co. v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 8, 1939Published

1DissentStacy, C. J.

A careful perusal of the record leaves me with the impression that reversible error has been shown in respect of the land subjected to what is designated a “Scenic Easement,” if not also in respect of the admeasurement of damages.

First. It is alleged in the petition, paragraph 6, subsection (i), that in addition to the 76.7 acres of petitioner’s lands taken in fee simple, at least 12.12 acres adjacent to the right of way and belonging to the petitioner have been subjected to a scenic easement which is so drastic in its nature that it amounts “to the taking thereof in fee simple.”

The answer…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Brown v. . Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. State v. . MerrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. State v. . MatthewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. Jarrett v. High Point Trunk & Bag Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Spencer v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

38 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