State Ex Rel. Lee v. Penland-Bailey Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.
Defendant, in its motion for summary judgment and by argument and brief in this Court, rests its case solely upon the premise that the “land-disturbing activity” on defendant’s property happened before the effective date of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and therefore the act is not applicable to the facts of this case. Defendant argues that applying the act to the facts of this case would constitute an unlawful retroactive application of the statute. It further contends that because the “land-disturbing activity” occurred prior to the effective date of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Union Pacific Railroad v. Laramie Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. TranbargerSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Lewis v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fogleman v. D & J EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- Cox v. State Ex Rel. SummersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- State ex rel. Banking Commission v. Citicorp Savings Industrial BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Hensley v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Harnett Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ret. Sys. Div.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.