Legal Opinion

Wil-Hol Corp. v. Marshall

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 4, 1984No. 8410DC152PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

We think that the trial court’s dismissal of this action was proper for several reasons: Tillie Joyner had no legal authority to attack the zoning ordinance, and in undertaking to attack it she did not follow the established procedure for doing so. Although neither party has provided us with the review provisions of the Wake Forest Zoning Ordinance, we assume that they conform to the statutes that apply to all municipalities in this state. These statutes provide that “[a]n appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved” from any decision of a zoning officer to the town’s Zoning…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Kent v. HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Kent v. HumphriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Pigford v. BOARD OF ADJ. OF CITY OF KINSTONCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. County of Cumberland v. Eastern Federal Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Calco EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Jeffries v. Cty. of HarnettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  3. Potter v. City of HamletCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  4. Town of Pinebluff v. MartsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  5. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Calco EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API