Legal Opinion

Huntley v. Potter

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 22, 1961No. 101PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMooee, J.

Petitioners contend that the report, prepared by the municipality pursuant to G.S. 160-453.3, which was made a part of the annexation ordinance, is insufficient on its face (1) to show that the area to be annexed is “developed for urban purposes,” (2) to show that the municipality plans to extend major municipal services, including sewerage, fire protection and street maintenance, to the area to be annexed “on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services are provided” within the town, and (3) to show that adequate provision has been made for financing service…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re Annexation Ordinances Nos. 866-870, Etc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  2. In Re Housing Authority of City of Charlotte.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Kirby v. Stokes County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. People ex rel. Peterson v. OmenIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
  5. J. A. Jones Construction Co. v. Local Union 755 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Dobson v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Strickland v. HedrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  3. Henderson County v. OsteenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Food Town Stores, Inc. v. City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  5. In re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of New BernSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

54 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