Legal Opinion

Atkins v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 15, 1936PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

We do not think that any of the exceptions and assignments of error made by plaintiffs can be sustained. The record discloses that the city of Durham now has many parks and playgrounds, among them “Long Meadow Park,” a gift to the city of Durham “for the white people of Durham County,” and “Hillside Park,” “for the colored people of Durham County.”

The city council of the city of Durham passed the following ordinance :

“Section 1. That the city of Durham issue its bonds pursuant to the Municipal Finance Act, as amended, in an amount not exceeding $25,000, for the purpose of acquiring lands or…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bolster v. City of LawrenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Scibilia v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Kellar v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Board of Park Commissioner v. PrinzCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
  5. Storm v. Town of Wrightsville BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Gion v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Glenn Ex Rel. Glenn v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of MorgantonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Maready v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Brumley v. . BaxterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

14 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