City of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, WINSTON-SALEM

CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
CitationCity of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, 288 S.E.2d 808, 304 N.C. 724 (N.C. 1982)
Decision Date12 January 1982
Docket NumberWINSTON-SALEM
PartiesCITY OFv. Katie S. Ziglar TICKLE (widow), et al.

Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff.

Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready, Winston-Salem, for defendant.

Plaintiff's petition for discretionary review under G.S. § 7A-31, 53 N.C.App. 516, 281 S.E.2d 667. Denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Dept of Trans v. Joe C. Rowe et al
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 2000
    ...omitted). Applying this rule in City of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, 53 N.C. App. 516, 281 S.E.2d 667 (1981), disc. review denied, 304 N.C. 724, 288 S.E.2d 808 (1982), our Court held that all of the tracts making up a family owned cattle farm was property affected by the taking of a portion of ......
  • Department of Transp. v. Rowe
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2000
    ...omitted). Applying this rule in City of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, 53 N.C.App. 516, 281 S.E.2d 667 (1981),disc. review denied, 304 N.C. 724, 288 S.E.2d 808 (1982), our Court held that all of the tracts making up a family owned cattle farm was property affected by the taking of a portion of th......
  • City of Winston-Salem v. Yarbrough
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1994
    ...N.C. 705, 347 S.E.2d 437 (1986); City of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, 53 N.C.App. 516, 281 S.E.2d 667 (1981), disc. review denied, 304 N.C. 724, 288 S.E.2d 808 (1982); and Board of Transportation v. Martin, 296 N.C. 20, 249 S.E.2d 390 (1978). Plaintiff then concedes that with regard to condemna......
  • Department of Transp., Div. of Admin. v. Jirik
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1986
    ...131, 89 L.Ed. 618 (1944); City of Winston-Salem v. Tickle, 53 N.C.App. 516, 524, 281 S.E.2d 667, 671 (1981), review denied, 304 N.C. 724, 288 S.E.2d 808 (1982). In this case, it is undisputed that the three parcels are physically contiguous and are all owned by Jirik. The parties disagree, ......
  • Get Started for Free