Legal Opinion

Frink v. North Carolina Board of Transportation

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 15, 1975No. 7513SC336PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

“Ordinarily, an injunction will not be granted where there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law, which is as practical and efficient as is the equitable remedy.” Durham v. Public Service Co., 257 N.C. 546, 126 S.E. 2d 315 (1962). However, equity will exercise its preventive powers by restraining the if remedial injury or threatened injury to or destruction of property rights. Clinton v. Ross, 226 N.C. 682, 40 S.E. 2d 593 (1946). An injury is irreparable, within the law of injunctions, where it is of a “peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gause v. . PerkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1857
  2. Abdalla v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. Town of Morganton v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  4. Clinton v. . RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. State Highway Commission v. MatthisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Gregory v. SandersWyoming Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Weiss v. PedersenWyoming Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Wilson v. Lucerne Canal and Power Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Board of Light & Water Commissioners v. Parkwood Sanitary DistrictCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Polo Ranch Co. v. City of CheyenneWyoming Supreme Court · 2003

12 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