Duren v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Duren v. City of Charlotte

185 S.E. 434, 210 N.C. 824, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 240

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 29, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 434 (Duren v. City of Charlotte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duren v. City of Charlotte, 185 S.E. 434, 210 N.C. 824, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 240 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence fails to make out a case of actionable negligence against the city of Charlotte. Walker v. Reidsville, 96 N. C., 382, 2 S. E., 74. It is not perceived wherein the defendant omitted to discharge any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. She was not injured by reason of any defect in the street or sidewalk. Haney v. Lincolnton, 207 N. C., 282, 176 S. E., 573. The judgment of nonsuit is correct.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence fails to make out a case of actionable negligence against the city of Charlotte. Walker v. Reidsville, 96 N. C., 382, 2 S. E., 74. It is not perceived wherein the defendant omitted to discharge any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. She was not injured by reason of any defect in the street or sidewalk. Haney v. Lincolnton, 207 N. C., 282, 176 S. E., 573. The judgment of nonsuit is correct.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 434, 210 N.C. 824, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duren-v-city-of-charlotte-nc-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack