Opinion

Tucker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Zoning Bd. of Adjust.

355 N.C. 758 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 27, 2002

Full text

TUCKER v. MECKLENBURG CTY. ZONING BD. OF ADJUST.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rulé 16 (b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 27 June 2002.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 6829870

Citations

355 N.C. 758
566 S.E.2d 483

Cited by

Robertson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Charlotte
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2004
In the Matter of Society for Preservation of Historic Oakwood
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2002
Raleigh Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2002

Parentheticals

after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds with the proper standard of review
In the Matter of Society for Preservation of Historic Oakwood
if petitioner argues the board's decision was based on error of law the trial court applies de novo review
In the Matter of Society for Preservation of Historic Oakwood
after determining the actual nature of the contended error the appellate court then proceeds with the proper standard of review
Raleigh Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment
if petitioner argues the board’s decision was based on error of law the trial court applies de novo review
Raleigh Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment