Tucker v. Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment
576 S.E.2d 324, 356 N.C. 658, 2003 N.C. LEXIS 39
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 petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was 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
Tucker v. Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 576 S.E.2d 324, 356 N.C. 658, 2003 N.C. LEXIS 39 (N.C. 2003).
576 S.E.2d 324 (Tucker v. Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Campola
812 S.E.2d 681 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2018)
Four Seasons Management Services, Inc. v. Town of Wrightsville Beach
695 S.E.2d 456 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Templeton Properties LP v. TOWN OF BOONE
681 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
MMR HOLDINGS, LLC. v. City of Charlotte
621 S.E.2d 210 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Robertson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Charlotte
605 S.E.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Jones v. Davis
594 S.E.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Morris Communications Corp. v. Board of Adjustment for Gastonia
583 S.E.2d 419 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)