Robins v. Town of Hillsborough
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Viar v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
- Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- In Re: Joseph Lee MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Henry v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.