Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dep't of Transp. v. Adams Outdoor Advert. of Charlotte Ltd. P'ship

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 29, 2017No. 206PA16Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice HUDSON concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that Article 9 and not 11 of N.C.G.S. Chapter 136 governs in this condemnation proceeding. I also agree with the majority's analysis regarding the permits, the lease extensions, and most of its approach to the bonus value method. I disagree with the majority's analysis regarding whether the billboard and the lost income may properly be considered in the valuation of just compensation under Article 9. Accordingly, I would affirm in part, modify and affirm in part, and reverse in part the decision of the Court of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Wilson v. McLeod Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Lea Co. v. North Carolina Board of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Little v. National Service Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Proctor v. Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

15 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