Legal Opinion

Duke Power Company v. Rogers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 25, 1967No. 27PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.

Petitioner assigns as error the following portion of the judge’s charge on the measure of damages:

“So, you see, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there are two elements of compensation to be considered by you. Number one, the market value of the land actually appropriated for easement purposes here, consisting of approximately one acre, and, second, the injury or damage done to the remainder of the tract or portion of the land, used by the owners as one tract. So the amount of compensation which the landowners are entitled to recover, if you find they are entitled to recover at all, is,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. Carolina Power & Light Co. v. BowmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. Carolina & Yadkin River Railroad v. ArmfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  5. Carolina Power and Light Company v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Statesville v. BowlesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  2. Chappell v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
  3. Chappell v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
  4. Duke Power Co. v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API