Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Finch v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1989No. 85PA89Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Martin

I agree and concur with the well-reasoned majority opinion and write only to state additional reasons in support of the Court’s decision. !

Plaintiffs bought the subject property after it had been rezoned R-10. As they did not own the property at the time it was rezoned, they were not damaged by the zoning. Plaintiffs contend, however, that they were legally obligated to purchase the property after they notified the owner of the land that they intended to exercise their option. This occurred on 29 April 1985, three days after plaintiffs’ agreement with Red Roof Inns expired and twenty-seven…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Brenner v. Little Red School House, Ltd.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Sale v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. Sechrest v. Forest Furniture CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Byrd v. FreemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

2 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