Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chrismon v. Guilford County

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 28, 1988No. 232PA87Published

1DissentJustice Mitchell

The zoning amendment and conditional use permit in this case amounted to written acceptance by Guilford County of Clapp’s offer — by written application — to use his property only in certain ways. Thus, for reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 85 N.C. App. 211, 354 S.E. 2d 309 (1987), Guilford County’s actions in the present case also amounted to illegal “contract zoning.” See Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E. 2d 35 (1972); Allred v. City of Raleigh, 277 N.C. 530, 178 S.E. 2d 432 (1971).

I believe that Guilford County was without authority to engage…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blades v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Childers v. Parker's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Allred v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. EQUIPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION v. ScheidtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  5. Chrismon v. Guilford CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API