In Re W. P. Rose Builders Supply Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBeogden, J.
Tbe plaintiffs assert:
1. Tbat tbe zoning ordinance is unconstitutional.
2. Tbat tbe property owned by them is exempted from tbe operation of tbe ordinance.
Tbe last utterance of this Court upon zoning ordinances is contained in Elizabeth City v. Aydlett, 201 N. C., 602. In this case tbe philosophy of zoning ordinances is expounded and applied. All tbe usual grounds of assault upon tbe zoning theory were discussed with abundant citation of supporting authority. Moreover, tbe opinion draws a clear line of demarcation between tbe principles of law applicable to tbe zoning-ordinance of Goldsboro…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Elizabeth v. AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Town of Clinton v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- MacRae v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- State v. . BurlesonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Graw v. Manning & EppersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
3Cited by28 opinions
- Leary v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Russian Hill Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Permit AppealsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Nelson v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2011
- Heaton v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.