Legal Opinion

Yarborough v. North Carolina Park Commission

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 21, 1928PublishedCited by 80 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Tbe demurrer admits only such relevant facts as are set forth in the complaint and such relevant inferences of fact as are deducible therefrom. It raises an issue of law, but it does not admit conclusions of law or matters of evidence or facts controverting those of which the Court must take judicial notice. Whitehead v. Telephone Co., 190 N. C., 197; Sexton v. Farrington, 185 N. C., 339. It may be seen by reference to the statement of facts that the complaint and the demurrer present the question whether the statutes under which the defendant is proceeding (Laws 1927, ch. 48), are in…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Hurtado v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. In Re KemmlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Hunter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  4. Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HumesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885

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

3Cited by80 opinions

  1. State v. BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. State v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. Long v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  4. McIntyre v. ClarksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. Wells v. Housing Authority of the City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

75 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