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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sellers v. City of Ashevillegreen2 sentences2008App. 544, 549 , 236 S.E.2d 283, 286 (1977) (“To be adequate, the notice of public hearing required by G.S. 160A-364 must fairly and *135 sufficiently apprise those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed.”): We agree with the superior court’s order that other notice methods are designed to give the public more specific information, while the posted sign is designed as part of the overall notice scheme to identify and locate the property that is the subject of the public hearing process. 2006North Carolina law requires that a notice of public hearing “fairly and sufficiently apprise those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed.” Sellers v. City of Asheville, 33 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Rate Bureau
green
2 sentences1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, “All . . . hearings . . . may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies . . . designated by him for the purpose.” Since the Department of Insurance is an “agency” subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E. 2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E. 2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. 1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, "All ... hearings ... may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies ... designated by him for the purpose." Since the Department of Insurance is an "agency" subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E.2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E.2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau
green
2 sentences1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, “All . . . hearings . . . may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies . . . designated by him for the purpose.” Since the Department of Insurance is an “agency” subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E. 2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E. 2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. 1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, "All ... hearings ... may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies ... designated by him for the purpose." Since the Department of Insurance is an "agency" subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E.2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E.2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Rate Bureau
green
2 sentences1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, “All . . . hearings . . . may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies . . . designated by him for the purpose.” Since the Department of Insurance is an “agency” subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E. 2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E. 2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. 1983Indeed, G.S. 58-9.2 provides that, “All . . . hearings . . . may be conducted by the Commissioner personally or by one ... of his deputies . . . designated by him for the purpose.” Since the Department of Insurance is an “agency” subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381 , 269 S.E. 2d 547 , reh. dismissed, 301 N.C. 107 , 273 S.E. 2d 300 (1980), an agency is also authorized to designate a hearing officer to handle contested cases pursuant to the provisions of the Act, G.S. 150A-32. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Gregory v. Town of Plymouth
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 433, 299 S.E.2d at 234 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rexham Corporation v. Town of Pineville
green
1 sentence1983Rexham v. Town of Pineville, 26 N.C. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.