{
  "id": 4151360,
  "name": "NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. DAVID C. BLEVINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Blevins",
  "decision_date": "2009-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 59A09",
  "first_page": "649",
  "last_page": "650",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "363 N.C. 649"
    }
  ],
  "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": "670 S.E.2d 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12642406
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/670/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "637 S.E.2d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637333
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "895",
          "parenthetical": "a jury may consider the adverse effects of a condemnation on a business, not as a separate item of damage but rather a circumstance tending to show the diminution in the over-all fair market value of the property"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/637/0885-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "670 S.E.2d 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12642406
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "625"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/670/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3747132
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "14",
          "parenthetical": "a jury may consider the adverse effects of a condemnation on a business, not as a separate item of damage but rather a circumstance tending to show the diminution in the over-all fair market value of the property"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 S.E.2d 732",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568936
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0507-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2445,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13494705675890756
    },
    "sha256": "3b4742668099fe9c89ad4b723c7fb2af28eb13d585ea04ced04cf8d20154405c",
    "simhash": "1:2560fcbb461de276",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:39.869638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. DAVID C. BLEVINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAs to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of the effect of the creation of a traffic median, which is an exercise of police power, we believe after reviewing the evidence presented at trial that the references were de minimis and thus not prejudicial. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals except that, in accordance with Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 257 N.C. 507, 126 S.E.2d 732 (1962), we disavow the following language in the Court of Appeals opinion:\nEvidence of the construction of the traffic median near Blevins\u2019 property could have been considered in the context of the purpose and use of the taking as well as generally considered in determining whether the taking rendered Blevins\u2019 property less valuable. E.g., DOT v. M.M. Fowler, Inc., 361 N.C. 1, 14, 637 S.E.2d 885, 895 (2006) (a jury may consider the adverse effects of a condemnation on a business, not as a separate item of damage but rather a circumstance tending to show the diminution in the over-all fair market value of the property).\nDOT v. Blevins, - N.C. App. -, -, 670 S.E.2d 621, 625 (2009).\nMODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Martin T. McCracken, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes and Davis, RA., by Jones P. Byrd and Matthew W. Kitchens, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. DAVID C. BLEVINS\nNo. 59A09\n(Filed 6 November 2009)\nEminent Domain\u2014 highway condemnation \u2014 traffic median\u2014 language in COA opinion disavowed\nReferences in a highway condemnation action to the effect of the creation of a traffic median near the owner\u2019s property were de minimis and not prejudicial. However, language in the Court of Appeals opinion stating, \u201cEvidence of the construction of the traffic median near [the owner\u2019s] property could have been considered in the context of the purpose and use of the taking as well as generally considered in determining whether the taking rendered [the owner\u2019s] property less valuable\u201d is disavowed.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 194 N.C. App.-, 670 S.E.2d 621 (2009), affirming a judgment entered on 17 September 2007 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in Superior Court, Haywood County, and dismissing defendant\u2019s cross-appeal from that judgment. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 September 2009.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Martin T. McCracken, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellant.\nVan Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes and Davis, RA., by Jones P. Byrd and Matthew W. Kitchens, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0649-01",
  "first_page_order": 687,
  "last_page_order": 688
}