Legal Opinion

Rousseau v. . Bullis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 20, 1931PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It was conceded on the argument that the electioii which the defendants, in their counter-action, seek to enjoin, was held 5 May, 1931. Hence, as the gravamen of the cross-action, or the act therein sought to be restrained, is now fait accompli, or a fact accomplished, or “water in the mill-tail,” to quote an expressive phrase from the late Chief Justice Hoke, it would serve no useful purpose to moot an academic question. Rasberry v. Hicks, 199 N. C., 702; Glenn v. Cul breth, 197 N. C., 675, 150 S. E., 332; Kilpatrick v. Harvey, 170 N. C., 668, 86 S. E., 596; Sullivan v. Swain, 199 N. C., 819.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Moore v. Cooper Monument Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  2. Harrison v. . BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. Glenn v. . CulbrethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Kilpatrick v. . HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Rasberry v. HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Goad v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  2. Efird v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Groves v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. Ratcliff v. RodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Cahoon v. . Comrs. of HydeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

10 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