HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILSON v. Wooten
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
The basis of the Housing Authority’s motion to strike Sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 from respondents’ further answer and defense contained in their amended answer is that the facts therein alleged constitute no legal defense to its special proceeding to condemn respondents’ land. The stricken allegations are in substance a plea in bar that denies the Housing Authority’s right to condemn their land, and which, if established, will destroy its right. Mercer v. Hilliard, 249 N.C. 725, 107 S.E. 2d 554; In re Housing Authority of the City of Salisbury, 235 N.C. 463, 70 S.E. 2d 500. In…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Housing Authority v. HigginbothamTexas Supreme Court · 1940
- Chapman v. Huntington, West Virginia, Housing AuthorityWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1939
- Pue v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Stockus v. Boston Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- In Re Housing Authority of City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Singleton v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Martin v. North Carolina Housing CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Sykes v. BelkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Albemarle Electric Membership Corp. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Armstrong v. McInnisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.