Legal Opinion · Dissent

Capital Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 2, 2001No. COA00-969Published

1DissentGreene, Judge

The majority holds the standard of review utilized by the Guilford County Superior Court cannot be determined and thus this case must be reversed and remanded. I disagree. The superior court stated in its judgment that the Guilford County Board of Adjustment’s (the Board) “interpretation ... of ‘residentially zoned property’ was reasonable [and] did not constitute [an] error of law.” Whether the superior court utilized a whole record review or a de novo review in reaching this conclusion is immaterial, “[s]ince [it] specifically concluded that the . . . Board did not commit an error of law.”…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health ServicesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  2. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Board of AdjustmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Barrett v. North Carolina Psychology BoardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

1 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