Legal Opinion

Reese v. City of Charlotte

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 5, 2009No. COA08-398PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEELMAN, Judge.

The trial court properly considered attachments to documents referred to in plaintiff’s complaint in deciding defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss. The transactions encompassed by an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County were authorized by the General Statutes and Local Acts of the North Carolina General Assembly. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims were based upon a unilateral expectation of a property interest and were properly dismissed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike.

I.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weaver v. Saint Joseph of the Pines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  2. Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Alamance County v. N.C. Department of Human ResourcesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Barbour v. Carteret CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Reese v. BROOKLYN VILLAGE, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  2. Reese v. Mecklenburg CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  3. Pete Wall Plumbing Co. v. Sandra Anderson Builders, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  4. Cadieu Tree Experts, Inc. v. WiednerNorth Carolina Business Court · 2026
  5. Pete Wall Plumbing Co. v. Sandra Anderson Builders, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

17 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