Legal Opinion

Schaefer v. Town of Hillsborough

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 5, 2011No. COA10-968Published

1Opinion of the Court

BRYANT, Judge.

Because this Court, in a prior appeal of this case, ordered that the matter be remanded “for entry of judgment directing the [Board of Adjustment] to issue the conditional use permit for which petitioners applied[,]” Schaefer v. Hillsborough, COA No. 08-796, slip op. at 12-13 (N.C. App. 4 August 2009), and, as a general rule, “an inferior court must follow the mandate of an appellate court in a case without variation or departure,” In re R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. 52, 57, 641 S.E.2d 404, 407 (2007) (quoting Condellone v. Condellone, 137 N.C. App. 547, 551, 528 S.E.2d 639, 642…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Robins v. Town of HillsboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007
  3. D & W, INC. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. In re R.A.H.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  5. Severance v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API