Stowe v. Burke
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtWiNboene, C.J.
The court below, in ordering that defendants be enjoined as specified in the judgment, concluded as a matter of law that the work done on the proposed apartment project and liabilities incurred by defendant Greentree corporation with respect thereto was not done and were not incurred in good faith, and that defendant Greentree Corporation has no vested right to construct the proposed apartment project on the Brickell property. Defendants except to these conclusions of law, thereby raising the following questions: (1) Do the facts as found by the court support the conclusion of law that…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Buffalo v. . ChadeayneNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Herskovits Et Ux. v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- People ex rel. Ortenberg v. BalesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Pelham View Apartments, Inc. v. SwitzerNew York Supreme Court · 1927
- In Re W. P. Rose Builders Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re HandySupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- Russian Hill Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Permit AppealsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Town of Hillsborough v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- Finch v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Application of Campsites Unlimited, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.