Department of Transportation v. M.M. Fowler, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentJustice Martin
“[W]hen the taking renders the remaining land . . . less valuable for any use to which it is adapted, that fact is a proper item to be considered in determining whether the taking has diminished the value of the land itself.” Kirkman v. State Highway Comm’n, 257 N.C. 428, 432, 126 S.E.2d 107, 110 (1962). Specifically, “[t]he amount of fuel sold at a service station is ... significant to a buyer and a seller of the property in setting a purchase price.” 5 Julius L. Sackman et al., Nichols on Eminent Domain § 19.06[2] at 19-44 (rev. 3d ed. 2006). Here, evidence was admitted tending to show that…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- Abernathy v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- State Highway Commission v. ConradSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Kirkman v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.