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 1 courts 1987–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co.green2 sentences2017See Shearl v. Town of Highlands , 236 N.C.App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E.2d 877 , 881 (2014) ("[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on Respondent." (citing *81 Cty. of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co. , 47 N.C.App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575 (1980) ). 2017See Shearl v. Town of Highlands , 236 N.C.App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E.2d 877 , 881 (2014) ("[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on Respondent." (citing *81 Cty. of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co. , 47 N.C.App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575 (1980) ). | 2 | 2 |
Shearl v. Town of Highlandsgreen2 sentences2017See Shearl v. Town of Highlands , 236 N.C.App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E.2d 877 , 881 (2014) ("[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on Respondent." (citing *81 Cty. of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co. , 47 N.C.App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575 (1980) ). 2017See Shearl v. Town of Highlands , 236 N.C.App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E.2d 877 , 881 (2014) ("[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on Respondent." (citing *81 Cty. of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co. , 47 N.C.App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575 (1980) ). | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Somersgreen1 sentence1999App. 611, 613 , 322 S.E.2d 665, 657 (1984) (barring the zoning challenge of a month-to-month tenant whose challenge was initiated after the leasehold was terminated). | 1 | 1 |
Wil-Hol Corp. v. Marshallgreen2 sentences1999See Wil-Hol Corp. v. Marshall, 71 N.C.App. 611, 613 , 322 S.E.2d 655, 657 (1984) (barring the zoning challenge of a month-to-month tenant whose challenge was initiated after the leasehold was terminated). 1999See Wil-Hol Corp. v. Marshall, 71 N.C.App. 611, 613 , 322 S.E.2d 655, 657 (1984) (barring the zoning challenge of a month-to-month tenant whose challenge was initiated after the leasehold was terminated). | 1 | 1 |
State v. . Partlowgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Partlow, 91 N.C. 550, 552 (1884). | 1 | 1 |
Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurstgreen2 sentences1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add "`government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions' to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts." This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a "deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend." In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C.App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 111 1997App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 115 L. | 1 | 1 |
Rutgers v. Pilusogreen2 sentences1987Rutgers, State Univ. v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 152-53 , 286 A. 2d 697, 702 (1972). 1987Rutgers, State Univ. v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 152-53 , 286 A. 2d 697, 702 (1972). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Overton v. Camden County
green
2 sentences2011The county appealed to this Court, arguing that “the trial court erred in applying the UDO to petitioner’s zoning violation, instead of the CCZO.” Id. at 394 , 574 S.E.2d at 160 . 2011The county appealed to this Court, arguing that “the trial court erred in applying the UDO to petitioner’s zoning violation, instead of the CCZO.” Id. at 394 , 574 S.E.2d at 160 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Pinehurst Area Realty, Inc. v. Village of Pinehurst
green
2 sentences1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add "`government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions' to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts." This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a "deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend." In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C.App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 111 1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add “ ‘government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions’ to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts.” This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a “deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend.” In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lakeview Development Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe
green
2 sentences1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add "`government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions' to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts." This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a "deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend." In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C.App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 111 1997App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 115 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hartness v. Bush
green
1 sentence1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add "`government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions' to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts." This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a "deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend." In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C.App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 111 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lakeview Development Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe
green
2 sentences1997According to plaintiff appellants, the newspaper advertisement for the zoning text amendment hearing stated that the County intended to add "`government owned buildings, facilities, and institutions' to the list of permitted uses in certain zoning districts." This advertisement, plaintiff appellants contend, was a "deliberate attempt by the county commissioners to conceal from the public the true purpose of [the zoning hearing] so that concerned citizens would not attend." In Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst, 100 N.C.App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 111 1997App. 77, 80 , 394 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 , 115 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.