Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robins v. Town of Hillsborough

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 21, 2006No. COA05-165Published

1DissentJackson, Judge

For the reasons stated below, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

Generally, “[t]he adoption of a zoning ordinance does not confer upon citizens . . . any vested rights to have the ordinance remain forever in force, inviolate and unchanged.” McKinney v. City of High *11Point, 239 N.C. 232, 237, 79 S.E.2d 730, 734 (1954). However, North Carolina recognizes two methods by which a landowner may establish vested rights in a zoning ordinance: (1) qualify pursuant to relevant statutes establishing such vested rights; or (2) qualify under the common law. Browning-Ferris Industries v.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Viar v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
  2. Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  3. In Re: Joseph Lee MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Henry v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

9 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