Legal Opinion
Moore v. Clark
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided April 9, 1952No. 311PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEevtN, J.
These propositions are well settled:
1. Tbe State Highway and Public Works Commission is a State agency or instrumentality, and as sucb exercises various governmental-functions, including that of supervising tbe construction and maintenance of state and county public roads. G.S. 136-1, 136-18, and 136-51. In consequence, it is not subject to suit except in the manner provided by statute. G.S. 136-19; Schloss v. Highway Commission, 230 N.C. 489, 53 S.E. 2d 517; Dalton v. Highway Com., 223 N.C. 406, 27 S.E. 2d 1. Hence, it cannot be sued for tort (Pickett v. R. R., 200 N.C. 750, 158 S.E. 398;…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Whichard v. LipeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Whichard v. . LipeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Carpenter v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Schloss v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Valley Forge Gardens, Inc. v. James D. Morrissey, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Guilford Realty & Insurance Co. v. Blythe Bros. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Rupert v. City of Rapid CitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- CCT Equipment Co. v. Hertz CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- State Highway Commission v. BattsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.