Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pendergrast v. Aikengreen2 sentences2007The duty of care with regard to private property owners as to damage caused by surface water is governed by the reasonable use doctrine, as set forth in Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201 , 236 S.E.2d 787 (1977): Each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land, even though the flow of surface water is altered thereby and causes some harm to others, but liability is incurred when his harmful interference with the flow of surface waters is unreasonable and causes substantial damage. 2007The duty of care with regard to private property owners as to damage caused by surface water is governed by the reasonable use doctrine, as set forth in Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201 , 236 S.E.2d 787 (1977): Each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land, even though the flow of surface water is altered thereby and causes some harm to others, but liability is incurred when his harmful interference with the flow of surface waters is unreasonable and causes substantial damage. | 1 | 6 |
Board of Transportation v. Terminal Warehouse Corp.green2 sentences2019Id. at 705, 268 S.E.2d at 184 . *690 In addition to announcing the reasonable use rule, the Court in Pendergrast described the inquiry that must be made, explaining that a cause of action for unreasonable interference with the flow of surface water causing substantial damage is a private nuisance action, with liability arising where the conduct of the landowner making the alterations in the flow of surface water is either (1) intentional and unreasonable or (2) negligent, reckless or in the course of an abnormally dangerous activity. .... 2011In Board of Transportation v. Warehouse Corp., 300 N.C. 700 , 268 S.E.2d 180 (1980), the trial court applied the reasonable use rule by instructing the jury to consider the damage from the diverted flood waters only if the State had “unreasonably interfered with the flow of surface waters.” Id. at 705 , 268 S.E.2d at 183 . | 1 | 5 |
Dunning Ex Rel. Sowers v. Forsyth Warehouse Co.green2 sentences2007However, in order for there to be a finding of negligence, a defendant is not required to"alter or interfere with the flow of surface water." See Dunning v. Warehouse Co., 272 N.C. 723, 725 , 158 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1968) (stating that "[t]he breach of duty may be by negligent act or a negligent failure to act"). 2007However, in order for there to be a finding of negligence, a defendant is not required to"alter or interfere with the flow of surface water." See Dunning v. Warehouse Co., 272 N.C. 723, 725 , 158 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1968) (stating that "[t]he breach of duty may be by negligent act or a negligent failure to act"). | 1 | 1 |
Sheehan v. Flynngreen2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eller v. Board of Education of Buncombe County
green
2 sentences2011Where the interference with surface waters is effected by [a government] entity, the principle of reasonable use articulated *154 in Pendergrast is superseded by the constitutional mandate that “[w]hen private property is taken for public use, just compensation must be paid.” Eller v. Board of Education, 242 N.C. 584 , 89 S.E.2d 144 (1955). 2011Where the interference with surface waters is effected by [a government] entity, the principle of reasonable use articulated *154 in Pendergrast is superseded by the constitutional mandate that “[w]hen private property is taken for public use, just compensation must be paid.” Eller v. Board of Education, 242 N.C. 584 , 89 S.E.2d 144 (1955). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Woodward v. Cloer
green
2 sentences2007Furthermore, in Woodward , this Court stated, "[t]here is no indication in the Pendergrast opinion that the court meant to apply the reasonable use rule to surface water drainage problems not arising under a nuisance theory." Id. at 338 , 315 S.E.2d at 338-39 . 2007As this instruction deals solely with riparian rights, and since "[t]here is no indication in the Pendergrast opinion that the court meant to apply the reasonable use rule to surface water drainage problems not arising under a nuisance theory[,]" Woodward at 338 , 315 S.E.2d at 338-39 , the trial court did not err by failing to give the foregoing instruction. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Kings Mountain v. Goforth
green
1 sentence1979In holding that the trial court in the present case was correct in instructing the jury that the rights of the parties were governed by the reasonable use rule, we are not inadvertent to the expressions in some pre-Pendergrast cases in which our Supreme Court spoke in terms of the rights of upper and lower proprietors with regard to the control and use of surface waters as being property rights the invasion of which by a party having the power of eminent domain would amount to a taking, see, e.g., City of Kings Mountain v. Goforth, supra, at 325, 196 S.E. 2d at 238 , nor do we overlook similar | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Rodrigues v. State
green
2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
City of Houston v. Renault, Inc.
green
1 sentence1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Deetz
green
2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Morris v. McNicol
green
2 sentences1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). 1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Templeton v. Huss
green
2 sentences1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). 1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. S & M Land Co.
green
1 sentence1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp.
green
1 sentence1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sanford v. University of Utah
green
2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Jones v. Boeing Company
green
1 sentence1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Lunsford v. Stewart
neutral
2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mulder v. Tague
green
2 sentences1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d 1977See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 (1894); Enderson v. Kelehan, supra. Although these jurisdictions were for many years the sole adherents to the reasonable use rule, a growing number have recently adopted the rule fully, e.g., Weinberg v. Northern Alaska Development Corp., 384 P. 2d 450 (Alaska, 1963); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P. 2d 509 (1970); Armstrong v. Francis Corp., supra; Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W. 2d 897 (N.D. 1967); Butler v. Bruno, supra; Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285 , 488 P. 2d 741 (1971); State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1 , 224 N.W. 2d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Baer v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). 1977See Keys v. Romley, supra; Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 , 311 N.E. 2d 141 (1974); Commonwealth, Dept. of Hwys. v. S & M Land Co., Inc., 503 S.W. 2d 495 (1972); Baer v. Board of County Com’rs of Washington Co., 255 Md. 163 , 257 A. 2d 201 (1969); Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash. 2d 491 , 519 P. 2d 7 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Forbell v. . City of New York
green
1 sentence1924Sustaining the doctrine of reasonable use, be says: “But this question was completely put at rest, so far as the State of New York is concerned, by the case of Forbell v. New York, 164 N. Y., 522 ; 51 L. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.