Legal Opinion

Bolick v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 28, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant, by its demurrer to tbe complaint, on tbe ground that tbe facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant, relies upon tbe provisions of section 15, cb. 251, Private Laws 1911, entitled, “An act to amend tbe charter of tbe city of Charlotte.” There is no reference in tbe complaint to said private act of tbe General Assembly, nor is there an allegation therein that defendant is a municipal corporation by virtue of said private act. It is well settled that courts do not take judicial notice of private acts of tbe General Assembly. Parties to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sandlin v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  2. Wood v. . KincaidSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  3. Reid v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  4. Von Glahn v. . DerossettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
  5. Union Trust Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bland v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Hall v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API