Legal Opinion

Stamey v. Town of Burnsville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 24, 1925PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

We will consider only the assignments of error we think material. The court below charged the jury as follows: “In the first place, if the defendant town has built a sidewalk and the sidewalk improves the condition of the public all along the street at this point the plaintiff is not chargeable with any general improvement by reason of the sidewalk being built, because that improvement applies to everybody and there being no special provisions in the charter of the town of Burnsville or in the general law that has been offered or referred to, authorizing these special benefits to be charged…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line R. R. v. WickerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  3. Carolina & Yadkin River Railroad v. ArmfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Miller v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  5. Bost v. Cabarrus CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. Hedrick v. GrahamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Strouds Creek & Muddlety Railroad v. HeroldWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Sanders v. . SmithfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Town of Ayden v. LancasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

6 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