Legal Opinion

Rudisill v. Icenhour

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 7, 1989No. 8825SC216PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendants’ appeal is from an order of summary judgment permanently enjoining them from using an unopened subdivision street that borders plaintiffs’ property and denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action. The only conflict in the pleadings, affidavits, deeds, maps and other materials of record — that the materials, both parties, and the court sometimes refer to the principal defendant as Harold J. Icenhour and other times as Howard J. Icenhour — is immaterial to the case and should be resolved by the parties on their own. In other pertinent part the materials…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cleveland Realty Company v. HobbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Wofford v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. McDaris v. Breit Bar" T" CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Russell v. CogginSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. Johnson v. Skyline Telephone Membership Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hensley v. SamelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Nelms v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. Gaskill v. State ex rel. CobeyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API