Legal Opinion

Logan v. Sprinkle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 13, 1961No. 384PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.

The appellants assign as error (1) that the findings of fact by the court below are contrary to the agreed statement of facts filed in this case and the evidence presented at the trial thereof; (2) that the conclusions of law by the court below are contrary to the facts and the law applicable to same; (3) that the judgment declaring the restrictive covenants contained in Deed Book 694, page 62, inoperative, ineffective, null and void, is contrary to the facts of the case and the law applicable to same; and (4) that the judgment invalidates restrictive covenants and destroys property rights…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Barnette v. WoodySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Town of Burnsville v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. James v. PretlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Holden v. HoldenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Schloss v. JamisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Dealers Specialties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. High v. Ridgeway's OpticiansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. S. J. Groves & Sons & Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Hope Dale Realty, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

13 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