Legal Opinion

Maurice v. Hatterasman Motel Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 7, 1978No. 781SC88PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

Plaintiffs urge two assignments of error.

First. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. In the summary judgment, the court found:

[I]t appearing to the Court that the descriptions of the property claimed by the Plaintiffs as set out in the complaint and as contained in the Plaintiffs’ deeds is such that the descriptions leave the identity of the land absolutely uncertain and refer to nothing extrinsic by which the same may be identified with certainty and are therefore patently ambiguous, and therefore the motion should be allowed.

The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McCarley v. McCarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Searcy v. . LoganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Overton v. BoyceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Hurdle v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Scull v. . PrudenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Market America, Inc. v. LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  2. Lowe v. BryantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Schnitzlein v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. Allied Spectrum, LLC v. German Auto Ctr., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  5. Bb&t Boli Plan Tr. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.North Carolina Business Court · 2016

7 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