Fisher v. Town of Nags Head Plaintiffs, owners of oceanfront properties, sought to preliminarily enjoin a beach nourishment project because the defendant-town did not intend to pay plaintiffs for the easement that the town would need to add sand (and value) to plaintiffs’ properties. The issue of just compensation is one for the condemnation proceeding and not for preliminary injunction. The other issue raised by plaintiffs – that the town’s notice was inadequate – is rejected in part because the notice was sufficient to allow plaintiffs to file suit before the deadline set out in the notice.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Reed Judy Reed, her husband, and her mother bought property as joint tenants with right of survivorship; however, when the mother took out a mortgage on the property, the joint tenancy was severed, and a tenancy in common was created, without the right of survivorship.
Dayton v. Dayton Where the trial court made a final finding under G.S. § 28C-11(a) that plaintiff’s missing person had suffered an accidental death, this was a final decree, and the defendant-insurance company neither appealed, nor timely filed a motion to amend.
Taddei v. Village Creek Property Owners Association, Inc. Even though one paragraph of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants only allows the declarant, or its successors or assigns, to amend the covenants in order to bring them into compliance with town ordinances, another paragraph of the covenants allows a majority of property owners to amend the covenants before they are renewed every 10 years. The defendant-homeowners’ association followed the latter paragraph’s requirements to amend the covenants.
Eaton v. Campbell Although defendants “question[] the law that should have been applied to decide the issues presented herein,” defendants fail to identify what, if any, relevant law was the source of the purported “confusion and misinterpretation in the [trial court’s] rulings,” and which, if any, law should have been applied in its stead. Because defendants’ limited and unsupported arguments give us no reason to disturb the trial court’s judgment in which its conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact which are, in turn, supported by the record evidence, we affirm.
State v. Tyson When defendant’s first trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial, the trial court ordered an immediate re-trial, rejecting defendant’s request for a transcript of the first trial. Although defendant argued he needed the transcript to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the trial court’s ruling – that the prospect of a witness changing his testimony was mere speculation – would apply to any case and makes no determination why defendant has no need for a transcript in this particular case, especially in light of the fact that the state’s case rested entirely on the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator.
Lampkin v. Housing Management Resources, Inc. There was a hole in the fence surrounding an apartment complex’s playground. A resident’s child went through the hole to a frozen pond on neighboring property, fell through the ice, and was injured. The apartment complex is not liable for an injury the child sustained on someone else’s property.
Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation In preparation for a proposed northern beltway around Winston-Salem, the N.C. Department of Transportation has placed many tracts of land in regulatory limbo – the DOT is not yet buying most of the land, but it is restricting the owners’ ability to use the land. Given the uniqueness of land and the variety of uses to which the affected owners have put or may wish to put their land, the owners do not form a class within the meaning of N.C. R. Civ. P. 23.
State v. Houseright Even though, when testifying about events at the Rosemont Avenue address, victim B.F. testified that she and defendant had sexual intercourse but did not specifically testify as to an act that would constitute a sex offense, B.F. also testified that, preceding each incident of sexual intercourse, defendant digitally penetrated her. This testimony was broad enough to encompass the incident at the Rosemont Avenue address. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss one of the counts of statutory sex offense.
State v. Williamson Since defendant presented no evidence at trial to rebut the presumption that the firearm used in the robbery was functioning properly, he was not entitled to either an instruction on common law robbery or dismissal of the two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
