City of Charlotte v. Heath
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
Preliminarily to the statement of the question, we observe that the choice of a route in a condemnation proceeding is primarily within the political discretion of the grantee of the power and will not be reviewed on the ground that another route may have been more appropriately chosen unless it appears that there has been an abuse of the discretion. Power Co. v. Wissler, 160 N. C., 269, 76 S. E., 267; Selma v. Nobles, 183 N. C., 322, 325, 111 S. E., 543.
In the exercise of the right of eminent domain, private property can be taken only for a public purpose and upon just compensation. Long v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rindge Co. v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Yarborough v. North Carolina Park CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Holmes v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Williamson v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Stratford v. City of GreensboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- City of Charlotte v. McNeelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Eaton v. GrubbsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- Redevelopment Commission v. Security National Bank of GreensboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Central La. El. Co. v. Covington & St. Tammany L. & I. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.