Legal Opinion
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DURHAM v. Thorpe
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided May 25, 1966No. 769PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Per curiam
The plaintiff is the owner of the apartment in question. The defendant has no right to occupy it except insofar as such right is conferred upon her by the written lease which she and the plaintiff signed. This lease was terminated in accordance with its express provisions at midnight 31 August 1965. With its termination, all right of the defendant to occupy the plaintiff’s property ceased. Since that date the defendant has been and is a trespasser upon the plaintiff’s land.
The defendant having gone into possession as tenant of the plaintiff, and having held over without the right to do so…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Murrill v. . PalmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- McGuinn v. . McLainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
3Cited by16 opinions
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Thorpe v. Housing Authority of DurhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Escalera v. New York City Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Alan F. Gersman v. Group Health Association, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Thorpe v. Housing Authority of DurhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.