In Re Zoning Violation of Coleman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In Re Zoning Violation of Coleman

180 S.E.2d 439, 11 N.C. App. 124, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1463

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1971

Docket7128SC143

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 180 S.E.2d 439 (In Re Zoning Violation of Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Zoning Violation of Coleman, 180 S.E.2d 439, 11 N.C. App. 124, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1463 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

G.S. 160-178 provides that the rulings of municipal boards of adjustment shall be subject to review by “proceedings in the nature of certiorari.” The scope of review must be equal to that provided by G.S. Chap. 148, Art. 33, §§ 143-306 et seq. Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476, 128 S.E. 2d 879. G.S. 143-316 provides that appeals to the appellate division in proceedings governed by Art. 33 shall be under rules of procedure applicable to other civil cases. Therefore, the rule that an appeal to the appellate division may be prosecuted only at the instance of a party or parties aggrieved by the judgment of the court or tribunal from which the appeal is taken, G.S. 1-271, applies with as much force to proceedings such as the present, as to ordinary civil cases.

Throughout this record, the persons who attempt to bring this appeal are variously designated as “property owners on Druid Drive and adjacent streets,” “the property owners on Druid Drive whom we represent,” “neighboring property owners,” and “some of the residents of Druid Drive.” Nowhere are they named. Nowhere does it appear how many they number. Nowhere is the proximity of their residences to the post office addition indicated. Nowhere is it shown that any specific person or persons are “aggrieved” by the judgment of the Superior Court. Nor does it appear that any person or persons who might have been thereby aggrieved are among those prosecuting the appeal to this Court.

In this state, a legal proceeding must be prosecuted by a legal person, whether it be a natural person, sui juris, or a group of individuals or other entity having the capacity to sue and be sued, such as a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental body or agency. Even a class action must be prosecuted or defended by one or more named members of the class. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 23. A legal proceeding prosecuted by an aggregation of anonymous individuals, known only to their counsel, is a phenomenon unknown to the law of this jurisdiction.

*128 This appeal must be dismissed for lack of a showing that the parties are properly before the Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROCK, Judge.

G.S. 160-178 provides that the rulings of municipal boards of adjustment shall be subject to review by “proceedings in the nature of certiorari.” The scope of review must be equal to that provided by G.S. Chap. 148, Art. 33, §§ 143-306 et seq. Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476, 128 S.E. 2d 879. G.S. 143-316 provides that appeals to the appellate division in proceedings governed by Art. 33 shall be under rules of procedure applicable to other civil cases. Therefore, the rule that an appeal to the appellate division may be prosecuted only at the instance of a party or parties aggrieved by the judgment of the court or tribunal from which the appeal is taken, G.S. 1-271, applies with as much force to proceedings such as the present, as to ordinary civil cases.

Throughout this record, the persons who attempt to bring this appeal are variously designated as “property owners on Druid Drive and adjacent streets,” “the property owners on Druid Drive whom we represent,” “neighboring property owners,” and “some of the residents of Druid Drive.” Nowhere are they named. Nowhere does it appear how many they number. Nowhere is the proximity of their residences to the post office addition indicated. Nowhere is it shown that any specific person or persons are “aggrieved” by the judgment of the Superior Court. Nor does it appear that any person or persons who might have been thereby aggrieved are among those prosecuting the appeal to this Court.

In this state, a legal proceeding must be prosecuted by a legal person, whether it be a natural person, sui juris, or a group of individuals or other entity having the capacity to sue and be sued, such as a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental body or agency. Even a class action must be prosecuted or defended by one or more named members of the class. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 23. A legal proceeding prosecuted by an aggregation of anonymous individuals, known only to their counsel, is a phenomenon unknown to the law of this jurisdiction.

*128 This appeal must be dismissed for lack of a showing that the parties are properly before the Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E.2d 439, 11 N.C. App. 124, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zoning-violation-of-coleman-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack