Legal Opinion

Hill v. Town of Hillsborough

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 2, 1980No. 8015SC114PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Defendant’s main arguments are that the plaintiffs’ evidence failed to establish the true boundary line between the property of the parties and that upon the evidence, plaintiffs were estopped to complain of the location of defendant’s road and utility lines. It is settled law that where the case is tried by the judge without a jury, the court’s findings of fact have the force and effect of a jury verdict and are conclusive on appeal if there is competent evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary. Henderson County v. Osteen, 297…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Williams v. Pilot Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Boddie v. BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Matthieu v. Piedmont Natural Gas CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. Henderson County v. OsteenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Yancey v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Nationsbank of North Carolina, N.A. v. BainesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Bishop v. ReinholdCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Knott v. WASHINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, ETC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Currituck Associates—Residential Partnership v. HollowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  5. Joyner v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987

2 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