Legal Opinion

Sechriest v. City of Thomasville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1932PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ClauksoN, I.

The sole question involved in this action: Is an assessment by a city against the abutting property owners on each side of the street widened, improved or surfaced to extent of five feet extra under a contract with, tbe State Highway Commission, by virtue of N. C. Code, 1931 (Micbie), sec. 3846(£f), invalid on account of tbe five feet on each side of such street widened, improved or surfaced, witbin tbe corporate limits, not being uniform in width witb tbe improved or surfaced portion of tbe State Highway outside of tbe corporate limits; no petition for tbe extra five feet to be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Charlotte v. BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  2. North Carolina State Highway Commission v. YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. City of Winston-Salem v. AshbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Flowers v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. Long v. City of RandlemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Crutchfield v. City of ThomasvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API