In re the Ordinance of Annexation No. 1977-4
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, Justice.
Under G.S. 160A-50(f), the person challenging an annexation ordinance must show (1) that the statutory procedure was not followed, or (2) that the provisions of G.S. 160A-47 were not met, or (3) that the provisions of G.S. 160A-48 have not been met. The party challenging the annexation has the burden of showing error. In In re Annexation Ordinance, 284 N.C. 442, 452, 202 S.E. 2d 143 (1974), this court, speaking through Huskins, J., said:
“As a general rule it is presumed that a public official in the performance of his official duties ‘acts fairly, impartially, and in good faith…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Koontz v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund of LouisvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- City of Wichita Falls v. Bowen, TrusteeTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Leonard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Huntley v. PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- In re T.N.H.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
- Texfi Industries, Inc. v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Humphries v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Mozingo v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.