By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 17,2013
Town of Sandy Creek v. East Coast Contracting, Inc. Although construction of a sewer system may be a governmental function, a municipality acts in a proprietary function when it contracts with engineering and construction companies, regardless of whether the project under construction will be a governmental function once it is completed
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2013
Fairway Outdoor Advertising v. Town of Cary Reading the respondent-town’s land development ordinance as a whole, petitioners’ appeal from the town’s notice of violation should have been taken within 30 days, yet petitioners did not appeal for nearly a year. The appeal was untimely.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 4,2013
Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, Va. A Virginia county may require a “spiritual counselor” who offers psychic readings to obtain a business license and follow local zoning laws; the 4th Circuit says she is entitled to some First Amendment protection, but the county has not unconstitutionally abridged her free speech rights, nor has it violated RLUIPA or plaintiff’s right to equal protection.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 20,2012
MNC Holdings, LLC v. Town of MatthewsThe superior court correctly interpreted the respondent-town’s zoning ordinance as allowing a property owner with a nonconforming use to make alterations “required by law” in general – not just alterations required to ensure the structure’s safety.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 23,2012
Fields v. City of Goldsboro When the defendant-city demolished plaintiff’s house, G.S. § 160A-443(6)(c) required the city to salvage personal property from the house and to credit proceeds of the sale of such property against the cost of demolition.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 22,2012
Affordable Housing Group of North Carolina, Inc. v. Town of Mooresville The respondent-town rejected petitioners’ application for a conditional use permit to build an apartment complex in a Highway-Business zone in part because the project would not be in conformity with the town’s comprehensive plan.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 7,2012
American Towers, Inc. v. Town of Morrisville In order to get a special use permit to erect a cell phone tower in the respondent-town, petitioner was required to show that the tower would not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. Petitioner’s real estate expert failed to make that showing; therefore, the superior court properly upheld the denial of petitioner’s application to erect a telecommunications tower.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 3,2012
Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head The defendant-town denied plaintiffs a building permit because their application was incomplete; therefore, plaintiffs cannot challenge a new town ordinance based solely on the town’s threatened or hypothetical denial of a permit under the new ordinance.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 25,2012
Livingston v. Robeson County (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-16-0764, 15 pp.) (John C. Martin, Ch.J.) Appealed from Robeson County Superior Court. (Robert F. Floyd Jr., J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: The denial of petitioner’s application for a permit to operate a group home was based entirely on evidence of the generalized fears of neighbors; therefore, the denial of the conditional use permit was not based on substantial, material and competent evidence in the record, and it was arbitrary and capricious.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 11,2012
Huggins, t/a SADISCO of Md. v. Prince George’s County, Md. A property owner who operated a salvage automobile wholesaling business on a parcel adjacent to Andrews Air Force Base’s CERCLA Superfund site, and whose business was cited for numerous county code violations, loses an appeal of the dismissal of its due process and state law claims against Prince George’s County, Md., for shutting down the salvage business pursuant to a consent order; the 4th Circuit says the owner failed to prove oral contracts under Maryland law.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
State v. Bean Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.
State v. Primus Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.
State v. Ingram though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury.
