Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

TUCKER v. MECKLENBURG CTY. ZONING BD

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 2003
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
DOCKET NO.

No. 68A02

Attorney(S)

Kennedy Covington Lobdell Hickman, L.L.P., by John H. Carmichael, for petitioner-appellants. Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade Bethune, L.L.P., by James O. Cobb, for respondent-appellee the Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment. Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough, L.L.P., by Paul J. Osowski, for respondent-appellees Marshall Gus Thomas, Jr., and Rhonda Golden-Thomas.

JUDGES

PER CURIAM.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

PER CURIAM.

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.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x