Miller v. City of Charlotte

214 S.E.2d 313, 25 N.C. App. 584, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2329
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided May 7, 1975·No. No. 7526SC101·Published

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

Plaintiff contends (1) that her attorney’s letter to the City Manager dated 30 July 1970 (within ninety days of the date of the accident) substantially complied with the requirements of Section 9.01 of the Charter of the defendant city and (2) that the defendant city in part because of its letter dated 3 August 1970 acknowledging receipt of Exhibit A is estopped to complain of a lack of notice in this matter.

Similar contentions in remarkably similar factual situations were made and rejected in Redmond v. City of Asheville, 23 N.C. App. 739, 209 S.E. 2d 820 (1974) ; Johnson v. City of Winston-Salem, 15 N.C. App. 400, 190 S.E. 2d 342 (1972), aff’d. 282 [588] N.C. 518, 193 S.E. 2d 717 (1973) ; and Short v. City of Greensboro, 15 N.C. App. 135, 189 S.E. 2d 560 (1972). We find and hold that these decisions are controlling in the present case and no useful purpose will be served by further elaboration thereon. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Martin concur.

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

Miller v. City of Charlotte, 214 S.E.2d 313, 25 N.C. App. 584, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2329 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

214 S.E.2d 313 (Miller v. City of Charlotte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Short v. City of Greensboro
189 S.E.2d 560 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
Johnson v. City of Winston-Salem
193 S.E.2d 717 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
Johnson v. City of Winston-Salem
190 S.E.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
Redmond v. City of Asheville
209 S.E.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)