Legal Opinion

In Re Annex. Ord. No. 1219 Adopt. by Asheville

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1983No. 8228SC524PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

The first issue we must address is whether petitioners’ petition for review was properly served on Asheville. It is Asheville’s contention that the provisions of G.S. 160Á-50(a) and (b) are controlling, and require service by registered mail, return receipt requested. The statute, in pertinent part, is as follows:

Sec. 160A-50. Appeal(a) Within 30 days following the passage of an annexation ordinance under authority of this Part, any person own*591ing property in the annexed territory who shall believe that he will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of the municipal…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Texfi Industries, Inc. v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Humphries v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Food Town Stores, Inc. v. City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. In re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of New BernSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Conover v. NewtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fender v. DeatonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  2. In Re City of Durham Annexation Ordinance Numbered 5991 for Area ACourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Matheson v. City of AshevilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Humphrey v. SinnottCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  5. Steffey v. Mazza Construction Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

3 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