Legal Opinion
Yancey v. Heafner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided October 12, 1966No. 204PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPless, J.
The plaintiffs concede that education not only includes improvement of the mind but also improvement of physical faculties of students. The use of an athletic playing field in our modern day educational system has become an integral part of the school curriculum. In fact, we can find no authority which holds that athletic facilities, including stadia, are forbidden in zones where schools are permitted.
“The proposed condemnation of certain land to provide an athletic field for a high school was held not to violate the provisions of the zoning ordinance under which institutions of an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In Re Pine Hill Cemeteries, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Jarrell v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OF HIGH POINTSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Tacoma School District No. 10 v. StojackWashington Supreme Court · 1958
- County of Durham v. AddisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- In Re the Appeal of HastingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2011
- Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- Austin Independent School District v. City of Sunset ValleyTexas Supreme Court · 1973
- Lambeth v. Town of Kure BeachCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.