Legal Opinion

Board of Transportation v. Charlotte Park & Recreation Commission

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 21, 1978No. 7826SC59PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

The Diocese first argues that the Commission and the City of Charlotte were not separate entities, and therefore a decision by the City to condemn the park land for street relocation was in effect a decision by the Commission to alter the use of the land, bringing the restrictive clause of the deed into play. In connection with this argument the Diocese asserts that the City is merely trying to avoid its obligations by agreeing with the State for the State to condemn the property. We disagree on both points.

The Commission was not, as the Diocese argues, merely an alter ego of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Charlotte v. Charlotte Park & Recreation CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State Ex Rel. Mondale v. Independent School District No. 31Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  3. Ink v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. City of Asheville v. State of N. CarolinaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2015
  2. Keistler v. KeistlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. Gordy v. Cobb County School DistrictSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API