Moses v. State Highway Commission
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
An order directing the appointment of commissioners in a condemnation proceeding is interlocutory. It is not such a determination of the rights of the parties as permits a dissatisfied party to appeal. G.S. 1-277, Board of Education v. Allen, 243 N.C. 520, 91 S.E. 2d 180; Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E. 2d 375. Nonetheless when, as here, the parties desire an answer to a question which is fundamental in determining their rights, is also of public importance, and when decided will aid State agencies in the performance of their duties, we will in the exercise of the supervisory…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Greene v. Charlotte Chemical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- State v. WarrenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Stefan Auto Body v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- North Carolina State Highway Commission v. NucklesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Wofford v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Malloy v. ReyesSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014
- State v. WilsonArizona Supreme Court · 1968
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.