{
  "id": 8600463,
  "name": "MARY E. LONG et al. v. CITY OF RANDLEMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Long v. City of Randleman",
  "decision_date": "1930-08-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 344"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 S. E., 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S. E., 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0670-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S. E., 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2114,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2284104443170226e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6050690600108346
    },
    "sha256": "484bdb53977a6b364d1f4a256cb402c3389df189e637b9b62473bdf5393391e1",
    "simhash": "1:39b7a1f4bc2f4f0a",
    "word_count": 360
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY E. LONG et al. v. CITY OF RANDLEMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cukiam.\nThe State Highway Commission constructed Highway No. 70 through the city of Randleman. In so doing the road was built across certain land of plaintiff within the corporate limits of said city.\nThe law imposes upon the Highway Commission the duty to lay out and build State highways, and in order to enable it to properly perform its function it is authorized to condemn land. O. S., 3846(bb). The defendant entered into an agreement with the Highway Commission in accordance with 0. S., 3846 (ff) to \u201csave the State Highway Commission harmless from any claim for damages arising from the construction of said work through the said city, and including claims for right of way, change of grade line, and interference with public service structures.\u201d The State Highway Commission was not a party to the action.\nAmple remedy is afforded to owners of land whose property has been taken for highway purposes and this remedy provided by statute is exclusive. Latham v. State Highway Commission, 191 N. C., 141, 131 S. E., 385; McKinney v. Highway Commission, 192 N. C., 670, 135 S. E., 772; Greenville v. Highway Commission, 196 N. C., 226, 145 S. E., 31. In the McKinney case, supra, this Court pointing out the remedy, said: \u201cThis remedy is equally available to the owner of land and the State Highway Commission.\u201d\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moser & Bums and A. Q. Davis for plaintiff.",
      "Brittain & Brittain and H. M. Robins for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY E. LONG et al. v. CITY OF RANDLEMAN.\n(Filed 20 August, 1930.)\nHighways A cl \u2014 Statutory remedy against Highway Commission for talcing of lands is exclusive.\nThe remedy afforded by statute to the owner of lands for damages for the talcing of his property for State highways is exclusive, and a motion as of nonsuit in an action therefor against a city which had agreed to save the Highway Commission harmless on claims for compensation within the city limits is properly allowed. C. S.,'3846(bb), 3846(ff).\nCivil actioN for damage to property, before MacBae, Special Judge, at October Special Term, 1929, of RaNdolfh.\nThere was a judgment of nonsuit, from which plaintiff appealed.\nMoser & Bums and A. Q. Davis for plaintiff.\nBrittain & Brittain and H. M. Robins for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 412
}