From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Zoning Bd.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 2003
356 N.C. 658 (N.C. 2003)

Opinion

No. 68A02

Filed 28 February 2003

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 148 N.C. App. 52, 557 S.E.2d 631 (2001), reversing an order and judgment entered 31 July 2000 by Judge Robert P. Johnston in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 3 February 2003.

Kennedy Covington Lobdell Hickman, L.L.P., by John H. Carmichael, for petitioner-appellants. Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade Bethune, L.L.P., by James O. Cobb, for respondent-appellee the Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment. Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough, L.L.P., by Paul J. Osowski, for respondent-appellees Marshall Gus Thomas, Jr., and Rhonda Golden-Thomas.


As to the issue on direct appeal based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.


Summaries of

Tucker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Zoning Bd.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 2003
356 N.C. 658 (N.C. 2003)
Case details for

Tucker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Zoning Bd.

Case Details

Full title:AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 2003

Citations

356 N.C. 658 (N.C. 2003)

Citing Cases

Templeton Properties v. Town of Boone

Although the Superior Court may review challenged errors of law de novo, whole record review is required…

State v. Campola

"Our review of a trial court's conclusions of law on a motion to suppress is de novo [,]" State v. Chadwick ,…