Legal Opinion

Helms v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 22, 1961No. 243PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMooRE, J.

As a general rule a zoning ordinance of a municipality is valid and enforceable if it emanates from ample grant of power by the Legislature to the city or town, if it has a reasonable tendency to promote the public safety, health, morals, comfort, welfare and prosperity, and if its provisions are not arbitrary, unreasonable or confiscatory. “But there is always a marginal area where it is difficult to say that the preference of the public interest over private interest opposing zoning is reasonable and constitutional. In this marginal area each case must be determined on its own facts.”…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Walker v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. City of Raleigh v. FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. In Re Appeal of ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Braden v. MuchIllinois Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Blankenship v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Blades v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Responsible Citizens in Opposition to the Flood Plain Ordinance v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Zopfi v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. State v. JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

41 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