State Highway Commission v. Cape
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Judge.
The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in treating the consolidated cases as one case and the two separate tracts as one tract of land. We agree.
It was error for the trial judge to sign and enter the judgment when the issue of just compensation due for each of the tracts had not been finally adjudicated and determined. Our Supreme Court comments:
‘“Can the court, by consent, enter a fragmentary judgment settling a part of the case and leave part of the issues to be settled at a later date or in another action? A judgment is conclusive as to all issues raised by the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Horne v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Hicks v. KoutroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Barham v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Winston-Salem v. TickleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Dep't of Transp. v. Bloomsbury Ests., LLCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2024
- Sarvghad v. Sitton Buick Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994