Legal Opinion

Barber v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 7, 1983No. 824DC554PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

We first note that injunction is a proper equitable remedy to enforce a restrictive covenant when the plaintiffs show that their remedy at law is inadequate and that they will suffer irreparable damage if the violation is allowed to continue. See Ingle v. Stubbins, 240 N.C. 382, 82 S.E. 2d 388 (1954); Franzle v. Waters, 18 N. C. App. 371, 197 S.E. 2d 15 (1973). Because the plaintiffs here have met this burden, the judgment is affirmed.

North Carolina follows the rule of strict construction when interpreting restrictive covenants. That is, any ambiguities will be resolved in favor…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Long v. BranhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. State v. SatterfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Stegall v. Housing Authority of the City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Ingle v. StubbinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. BLACK HORSE RUN PROP. OWNERS ASSOCIATION-RALEIGH, INC. v. KaleelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  2. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Ass'n v. Midsouth Golf, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  3. White v. McGowenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  4. Walton v. CarignanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  5. McVicker v. Bogue Sound Yacht Club, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017

5 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