Summary
holding that the city's plan to provide a full range of police services, including a regular patrol division, criminal investigation, ordinance enforcement and traffic control, to the annexed territory on substantially the same basis as to the rest of the city was sufficient to meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. 160A-47, especially where the plan included a commitment to hire additional personnel and to acquire new equipment to provide such services
Summary of this case from Matheson v. City of AshevilleOpinion
Prior report: 95 N.C.App. 457, 383 S.E.2d 657.
Herbert L. Hyde, Asheville, for petitioner-appellant.
Adams, Hendon, Carson, Craws&sSaenger, Asheville, for Thrash.
Moores&s Van Allen, Charlotte, for BASF Corp.
William F. Slawter, and Sarah Patterson Brison, Asheville, for City of Asheville.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiffs (Thrash) in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and 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
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of January 1990."
Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiffs (Thrash)'s new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
Plaintiffs (Thrash) shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.