By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 9,2012
McCoy v. City of Charlotte A superior court judge is not bound by the ruling of another superior court judge on the question of subject matter jurisdiction.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 26,2012
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis Since the defendant-town has merely proposed a pole-attachment rate to which the plaintiff-cable television provider objects, there is no controversy for the court to adjudicate.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 17,2012
Griffin Farm & Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Unionville Three authorizations are required to build and operate a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill: local zoning approval, a local government franchise, and a permit from the state. Where plaintiffs stopped accepting C&D waste seven months before their franchise expired, and where the defendant-town exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs a new franchise, plaintiffs did not have a common law vested interest to a new franchise agreement.
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 23,2012
Morgan v. Nash County The plaintiff-city seeks to challenge the county’s re-zoning of a farm for industrial use as a poultry processing plant. The city mounts this challenge because a separate piece of property, which would be used as a sprayfield for treated wastewater from the processing plant, is in the city’s watershed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
MCC Outdoor, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence indicates that the defendant-town caused plaintiff’s billboard to be removed since the only reason the new landowner did not extend plaintiff’s lease was because the town’s special use permit forbade it. However, the town’s forecast of evidence indicates that the new landowner would not have allowed the billboard to remain, even absent the special use permit condition.
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 17,2012
Bullard v. Wake County Although the defendant-county had insurance during the period in which county inspectors okayed construction and occupancy of a house that has since been found unfit for human habitation, an endorsement to the insurance policy (applicable to the first year and a half at issue) limited coverage to “occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defense is asserted, a court of competent jurisdiction determines the defense of governmental immunity not to be applicable.”
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. Boyd We reverse for the reasons stated in Judge Stroud’s dissent: Since there was overwhelming evidence of confinement and restraint, defendant has not shown that, absent the instruction on removal, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict.
Halifax Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Brown Where the plaintiff-hospital and the third-party defendant-medical practice were not in a joint venture, the practice’s termination of the defendant-doctor’s employment did not excuse his performance under his contract with the hospital.
King v. North Carolina Department of Commerce Despite petitioner’s testimony that he did not believe $60 per week was enough to compensate him for the wear and tear that would be caused to his personal vehicle by a 212-mile roundtrip commute to work, the respondent-agency could find that plaintiff failed to show he had good cause to resign when the respondent-employer stopped providing vehicles to its employees and instead started paying for gas plus $60 per week for wear and tear to the employees’ personal vehicles.
