From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 10, 1996
344 N.C. 637 (N.C. 1996)

Summary

holding that where a trial court is simply repeating or clarifying instructions in response to a jury's question, such comments are not "additional instructions"

Summary of this case from State v. Robinson

Opinion


477 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. 1996) 344 N.C. 637 TOWN OF SPRUCE PINE, a Municipal Corporation, and Bryant Electric Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. AVERY COUNTY and Avery County Board of Commissioners, consisting of Susan B. Pittman, Phyllis Forbes, Bill Beuttell, Arlene Eller, Tommy Burleson, Individually, Defendants, v. The NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, The Division of Environmental Management of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources; and The Division of Environmental Health of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Additional Defendants. No. 431A96. Supreme Court of North Carolina. October 10, 1996

       Daniel F. McLawhorn, Kathryn Jones Cooper, Special Deputy Attorneys General, Sarah Y. Meacham, Assistant Attorney General, for Environmental Division.

       Thomas E. Terrell, High Point, Lloyd Hise, Jr., Spruce Pine, for Town of Spruce Pine.

       Ronald W. Howell, Burnsville, Joseph W. Seegers, County Attorney, for Avery County.

       Prior report: 123 N.C.App. 704, 475 S.E.2d 233.

       ORDER

       Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Attorney General in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of October 1996."

       Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendant shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.


Summaries of

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 10, 1996
344 N.C. 637 (N.C. 1996)

holding that where a trial court is simply repeating or clarifying instructions in response to a jury's question, such comments are not "additional instructions"

Summary of this case from State v. Robinson
Case details for

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Case Details

Full title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 10, 1996

Citations

344 N.C. 637 (N.C. 1996)
344 N.C. 637

Citing Cases

Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes

Section 40A–3(b) begins by stating that the governing body of a municipality possesses the power of eminent…

Town of Midland v. Morris

Despite the disjunctive language of this statutory requirement, our Courts have determined the propriety of a…