Legal Opinion

Beal v. Dellinger

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 21, 1978No. 7827SC113PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Respondents contend that this proceeding should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. They rely on Pruden v. Keemer, 262 N.C. 212, 136 S.E. 2d 604 (1964), but that case is not on point. In Pruden, the Court found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petition had failed to allege what boundary line was in dispute, or in fact that any boundary line was in dispute. There the petitioners merely had set out what they believed to be the true location of the boundary of their lands and liad alleged that respondents’ lands would be “affected”…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cornelison v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  2. Pruden v. KeemerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. McCanless v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. Robinette v. WikeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chappell v. DonnellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Combs v. WoodieCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Beal v. DellingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  4. Burris v. ShumateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Nichols v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API