Blankenship Construction Co. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BROCK, Chief Judge.
It is appropriate to preface this opinion by acknowledging the well-established rule that the Commission is not subject to suit except in the manner provided by statute. Teer Co. v. Highway Commission, 265 N.C. 1, 143 S.E. 2d 247 (1965). General Statute 136-29 establishes the procedure for the settlement of claims against the Commission by a contractor who has not received “such settlement as he claims to be entitled to under his contract.” This language has been construed to mean that recovery is possible only within the terms and framework of the contract. Teer Co. v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
3Cited by6 opinions
- General Specialities Co. v. Nello L. Teer Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- S. J. Groves & Sons & Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Inland Bridge Co. v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- Neal & Co., Inc. v. City of DillinghamAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
- New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.