Legal Opinion

Rouse v. City of Kinston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1924PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

The defendant’s first assignment of error:

“The defendant moved the court to remand the case to the clerk, to the end that commissioners might be appointed as in condemnation proceedings, based on defendant’s answer, or to appoint the commissioners to view the premises and assess the damages, which the court declined to do.”

C. S., oh. 33, “Eminent Domain,” sec. 1706, is as follows:

“The right of eminent domain may, under the provisions of this chapter, be exercised for the purpose of constructing their roads, canals, lines of wires, or other works, which are authorized by law and which involve…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. EastTexas Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Chatfield v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
  5. Forbell v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Yeo v. TweedyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Monger v. . LutterlohSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Hildebrand v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  4. Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. ComptonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
  5. Rothrauff Et Ux. v. Sinking Spr. W. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

23 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