Legal Opinion
Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided January 7, 1997No. COA95-488PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McGEE, Judge.
Although plaintiffs ask this Court to rule on the constitutionality of the November 1993 amendment to the zoning ordinance, the only issue properly before us is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss under N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs argue their complaint against the Town of Chapel Hill states a claim for relief, is ripe for adjudication and, therefore, the motion to dismiss should have been denied. We disagree.
We first note that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to list or separate their causes of action, making it difficult to determine upon…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Goldblatt v. Town of HempsteadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Messer v. Town of Chapel HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
- Cary Creek Ltd. Partnership v. Town of CaryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- Bonge v. County of MadisonNebraska Court of Appeals · 1997
- Riggings Homeowners, Inc. v. Coastal Resources CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
- Cary Creek Ltd. Partnership v. Town of CaryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.