Legal Opinion

Thompson v. City of Salisbury

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 19, 1975No. 7419SC944PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

When, on the face of the record, the City has substantially complied with the statutory requirements for annexation, the burden is on petitioners to show by competent evidence a failure to meet these requirements. Dunn v. City of Charlotte, 284 N.C. 542, 201 S.E. 2d 873 (1974) ; In re Annexation Ordinance, 278 N.C. 641, 180 S.E. 2d 851 (1971). Upon a careful review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we have concluded that this burden has not been met.

Petitioners first contend that Area I does not meet the requirements of G.S. 160-453.16 (c) [now G.S. 160A-36] that part…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of New BernSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Lithium Corp. of America v. Town of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. ADAMS-MILLIS CORPORATION v. Town of KernersvilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  4. Williams v. Town of GriftonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  5. Dunn v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Town of Wake ForestCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Arquilla v. City of SalisburyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. Dubail v. Green Trails Plaza, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Hayes v. Town of FairmontCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  5. Thrash v. City of AshevilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API