Legal Opinion

Kistler v. City of Raleigh

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 6, 1964PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

The appeals present these questions: (1) Are plaintiffs prevented by the provisions of Raleigh’s charter from maintaining this action? (2) If not, are plaintiffs, because of defendant’s failure to give the bond prescribed by G.S. 1-111, entitled to judgment by default? The answer to each question is no.

Sec. 107(b) of the city’s charter, c. 1184, S.L. 1949, provides: “No action for damages against the city of any character whatever, * * * including damages for the taking and/or appropriation of private property of any kind, shall be instituted against the City of Raleigh, unless within 90 days…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ridley v. Seaboard & Roanoke RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  2. Eller v. Board of Education of Buncombe CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Rouse v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. Charlotte v. . KavanaughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Virginia Electric & Power Company v. KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. City of Charlotte v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API