Legal Opinion
Heaton v. City of Charlotte
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided January 20, 1971No. 68PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Justice.
Appellants first contend that the amendment to the zoning ordinance is invalid because it was altered after the initial hearing without additional notice or further hearing.
The notice of and the proceedings at the initial hearing are not challenged.
A municipality has no inherent power to zone its territory and possesses only such power to zone as is delegated to it by the enabling statutes, G.S. 160-172, et seq. The authority to enact zoning ordinances is subject to the limitations imposed by the enabling statute and by the Constitution. These limitations forbid arbitrary and…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi Ex Rel. KnoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Town of Burlington v. DunnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Hewitt v. County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
- Putney v. Abington TownshipSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Zopfi v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- River Birch Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- Eadie v. Town BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- State v. JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Liberati v. Bristol Bay BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Schwarz v. City of GlendaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.