Northfield Development Co. v. City of Burlington
535 S.E.2d 32, 352 N.C. 671, 2000 N.C. LEXIS 744
Opinion
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 petitions for discretionary review as to additional issues were improvidently allowed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Northfield Development Co. v. City of Burlington, 535 S.E.2d 32, 352 N.C. 671, 2000 N.C. LEXIS 744 (N.C. 2000).
535 S.E.2d 32 (Northfield Development Co. v. City of Burlington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Brunswick Cnty.
756 S.E.2d 833 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014)
The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Brunswick Cnty.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014
Guilford Financial Services, LLC v. City of Brevard
563 S.E.2d 27 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Devaney v. City of Burlington
545 S.E.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)