Legal Opinion

Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 5, 1988No. 8713SC908PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint against the Department of Transportation. We agree.

Inverse condemnation is governed by G.S. 136-111 which states in pertinent part:

Any person whose land or compensable interest therein has been taken by an intentional or unintentional act or omission of the Department of Transportation and no complaint or declaration of taking has been filed by said Department of Transportation may . . . file a complaint in the superior court. . . .

In Ledford v. Highway Comm., 279 N.C. 188, 190-91, 181 S.E. 2d 466, 468…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Falls Sales Co. v. Board of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. City of Winston-Salem v. FerrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Ledford v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Cody v. North Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Elliott v. Dep't of Transp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023
  2. Robinson v. North Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API