Legal Opinion

Foust v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 15, 1954No. 758PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

Defendant relies on tbe doctrine of governmental immunity, and both parties quote from tbe charter of tbe city. But in reviewing a judgment overruling a demurrer, we are confined to a consideration of tbe complaint, without reference to any fact not alleged therein. Towery v. Dairy, 237 N.C. 544, 75 S.E. 2d 534. Unless tbe facts alleged disclose, as a matter of law, that tbe acts complained of were committed in furtherance of a governmental function, governmental immunity is an affirmative defense which may not be presented for deci sion by demurrer. White v. Charlotte, 209 N.C. 573, 183 S.E.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rhodes v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. McKinney v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Munick v. . DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. Mintz v. Town of MurphySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Parker v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Isaacson v. Husson CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
  2. Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Schoenrock v. City of SissetonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Brewer v. ElksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

3 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