Legal Opinion

Hildebrand v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 16, 1941PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarNI-iill, J.

Defendant’s primary assignment of error is directed to the refusal of the court below to sustain its exception to the order of the General County Court denying its motion for judgment as of nonsuit. It stressfully contends that the State Highway Commission is vested with absolute control of all land within the right of way of a public highway of the State and that such right of way is acquired by the State not only for the ordinary mode of travel but for any and all other modes of com municating intelligence between points connected by tbe highways. It asserts, therefore, that when it…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
  2. Eels v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Donovan v. AllertNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  5. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. MackenzieCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1891

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Long v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Kirby v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
  3. State v. ChekanowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
  4. Wood Ex Rel. Putnam v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  5. Proctor v. Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

38 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