Legal Opinion

Village of Pinehurst v. Regional Investments of Moore, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1992No. 69A90PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Justice.

The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment was properly entered for the defendants because the right of first refusal was not limited in time and this duration violated the rule against perpetuities. We hold that we are bound by Smith v. Mitchell, 301 N.C. 58, 269 S.E.2d 608 (1980), to affirm the Court of Appeals. In Smith, we held that a preemptive right was not void because it terminated within the period of the rule against perpetuities. We said that a preemptive right or a right of” first refusal to be valid must not extend beyond the period of the rule against…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Bruken Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Thompson v. SolesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Smith v. MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Singer Company v. Makad, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1973
  5. Redevelopment Com'n of Greenville v. HannafordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Old Port Cove Holdings, Inc. v. CONDO. ASS'N ONE, INC.Supreme Court of Florida · 2008
  2. New Bar Partnership v. MartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. Rich, Rich & Nance v. Carolina Construction Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  4. Murphy Exploration & Production v. Sun Operating Ltd. PartnershipMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Tolland Enterprises v. Commissioner of TransportationConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994

7 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