Court Opinion

ID: 9794805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:11:57.969261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:40.983901
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: A careful analysis of the opinion of the court on rehearing in this case, and of the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Schroeder, brings into clear focus the confusion resulting from an attempt to apply the statute (G. S. 1955 Supp. 26-102) to the many and varied factual situations often present in appeals from awards of appraisers in condemnation proceedings. To me, the statute, from a procedural standpoint, is ambiguous and needs legislative clarification, and, in my opinion, no prior decision of this court gives a complete answer to the question presented. As applied to the practical problems which confront trial courts in such cases, I think there is much to be said for each of the views expressed, but my over-all feeling in the matter simply amounts to this:
I have pronounced misgivings as to and a fear of the sweeping results and ramifications of the opinion of the court. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous mandate by the legislature or a prior decision of this court to the contrary, it is my opinion that the question of consolidation of appeals involving .separate ownerships or interests in one parcel of land in turnpike condemnation proceedings should be left to the sound discretion of trial courts. In the instant case no abuse of judicial discretion was established and the judgment should therefore be affirmed. .
I therefore respectfully dissent.