City of Charlotte v. Cook
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Justice.
The Court of Appeals held that a condemning agency cannot take a larger estate in the condemned land than is necessary to carry out the public purpose for which the land is condemned. For this reason, said the Court of Appeals, the City could condemn only an easement in the property. We disagree with the Court of Appeals.
*225In Raleigh & Gaston R.R. Co. v. Davis, 19 N.C. 451 (1837), we dealt with the condemnation of land for the construction of a railroad. Chief Justice Ruffin, writing for the Court, explained the nature of the power of eminent domain. He pointed out that unlike the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Charlotte v. McNeelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Raleigh & Gaston Rail Road v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1837
- Town of Morganton v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- N. C. State Highway Commission v. Farm Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Crescent Electric Membership Corp. v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
3Cited by10 opinions
- Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Calco EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Scotland County v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- City of Monroe v. W.F. Harris Development, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.