Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Harrelson
| Decision Date | 08 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 455A93,455A93 |
| Citation | 442 S.E.2d 32,336 N.C. 66 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. v. Thomas J. HARRELSON, as Secretary of Transportation of the State of North Carolina. |
Michael F. Easley, Atty. Gen. by Elizabeth N. Strickland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for respondent-appellant.
Wilson & Waller, P.A. by Betty S. Waller, Raleigh, for petitioner-appellee.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion for the Court of Appeals by Greene, J., the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the summary judgment for the petitioner entered by the Superior Court, Wake County, is reversed. The cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County, for the entry of summary judgment for the respondent.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Overton v. Camden County, COA02-275.
...However, when the enforcement action was brought by Camden County, the UDO had superceded the CCZO. In Naegele Outdoor Advertising v. Harrelson, 336 N.C. 66, 442 S.E.2d 32 (1994), our Supreme Court reversed the majority's decision from this Court which had stated that application for permit......
- State v. Baker
-
Durham v. Durham City/County Bd. of Adjustment, COA10–120.
...Advertising v. Harrelson, 112 N.C.App. 98, 101–02, 434 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1993) (Greene, J., dissenting), rev'd per curium, 336 N.C. 66, 442 S.E.2d 32 (1994), had “reject[ed] the proposition that a court or board need not look at subsequent changes in the law when Board of Adjustment decision......