Legal Opinion

Yancey v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 8, 1942PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J".

The question for decision is whether the petitioners, in the circumstances here disclosed, are entitled, as a' matter of law, to interest on the compensation fixed by the jury from the date of the original appropriation. The record points to a negative answer.

In the first place, it will be noted from the issue submitted to the jury that the verdict embraces not only indemnity for the lands taken and easements imposed, but also damages for injury to the remainder of the lands. Highway Com. v. Hartley, 218 N. C., 438, 11 S. E. (2d), 314; Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N. C., 200; S. v.…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Bond v. Pickett Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. State Highway & Public Works Commission v. HartleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Dixon v. . OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. DeBruhl v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  2. Glace v. Town of Pilot MountainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Charles O. Martin, Raymond F. Farrar and Wife, Hazel M. Farrar, and Floyd B. Martin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API