Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Bowman v. Malloy

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 5, 1965PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Actions, as authorized by c. 19 of the General Statutes, for the abatement of nuisances are not in rem but in personam. Sinclair, Solicitor v. Croom, 217 N.C. 526, 8 S.E. 2d 834.

*398A party charged with the maintenance of a public nuisance, as defined by G.S. 19-1, has a right to traverse the factual allegations of the complaint. If he does so, he can not be deprived of his right to a jury trial on the issues raised by the pleadings, N. C. Constitution, Art. I, § 19; Art. IV, § 12 (formerly § 13); Sparks v. Sparks, 232 N.C. 492, 61 S. E. 2d 356; Sinclair, Solicitor v. Croom, supra. The property…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eason v. SpenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Sparks v. SparksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. State Ex Rel. Sinclair v. CroomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pease Brothers, Inc. v. American Pipe & Supply Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1974
  2. State Ex Rel. Rhodes v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Rhodes v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  4. State ex rel. Bowman v. FippsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Lynch v. LynchCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

1 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