Summary
In Naegele Outdoor Advertising v. Harrelson, 336 N.C. 66, 442 S.E.2d 32 (1994), our Supreme Court reversed the majority's decision from this Court which had stated that application for permits must be viewed under the facts and laws as they existed at the time of the application, not at the ultimate time of decision by the court.
Summary of this case from Overton v. Camden CountyOpinion
No. 455A93
Filed 8 April 1994
Appeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 112 N.C. App. 98, 434 S.E.2d 244 (1993), which affirmed a judgment entered by Stephens (Donald W.), J., on 30 June 1992 in Superior Court, Wake County, allowing petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denying respondent's motion for summary judgment. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 March 1994.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Elizabeth N. Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellant.
Wilson Waller, P.A., by Betty S. Waller, for petitioner appellee.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion for the Court of Appeals by Greene, J., the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the summary judgment for the petitioner entered by the Superior Court, Wake County, is reversed. The cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County, for the entry of summary judgment for the respondent.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.