Legal Opinion

McKinney v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 8, 1926PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stagy, O. J\,

after stating tbe case: In Latham v. Highway Commission, 191 N. C., 141, tbe Court beld tbat as tbe State Highway Commission is an unincorporated agency of tbe State, charged witb tbe duty of exercising certain administrative and governmental functions, it is not liable to suit for trespass or tort, such as tbe plaintiff has instituted in tbe present action. Speaking to tbe question, it was said tbat “where a State agency, like tbe State Highway Commission, is created for certain designated purposes, and a statutory method of procedure provided for adjusting or litigating claims…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Latham v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Schloss v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. Moore v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Yancey v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Reed v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Williams v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

11 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