Naomi E. Morris

The case involved New Hanover County's efforts to enforce its zoning ordinance against defendants who were found by the zoning board of adjustment to be in violation. The court addressed whether the county could seek injunctive relief and an order of abatement under state statutes, and whether defendants could raise defenses like estoppel or challenge the violation finding in superior court. The court held that G.S. 153A-324 and G.S. 153A-123 authorize equitable remedies for zoning enforcement without needing specific ordinance provisions, and that defendants' failure to appeal the board's decision within 30 days made it final and immune from collateral attack. Summary judgment for the county was affirmed because the unappealed board ruling established the violation and precluded further challenges.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned the defendant's convictions for two counts of armed robbery arising from an incident in which two men robbed a husband and wife at their home of guns, money, and jewelry belonging to each spouse separately, with the defendant allegedly aiding and abetting by hiring the perpetrators. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her motion to suppress evidence from a search warrant, the admission of certain statements made during the robbery, the sufficiency of the evidence, the charging of two separate robbery offenses, and the consecutive sentences imposed. The court affirmed, holding that the search warrant application established probable cause through detailed information from the named victims and corroboration by other law enforcement officers, that the statements were admissible as made in the defendant's presence, that the evidence supported aiding-and-abetting liability, that property taken from two victims constituted distinct offenses, and that the presumptive sentences required no findings on mitigating factors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs challenging a final tax decision issued by the North Carolina Department of Revenue, alleging that it was invalid because it was not signed by Howard Coble while he served as Secretary. Defendants moved for summary judgment, supported by a verified answer and Coble's affidavit confirming that he executed the decision on January 7, 1977, before resigning. Plaintiffs offered no evidence to contradict this and instead focused on irrelevant matters like property valuation, which was not raised in their complaint. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact on the sole ground alleged in the pleadings, and the appeals court affirmed.

taxesprocedure

This case involved challenges by intervenors including the North Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association to the North Carolina Utilities Commission's order in a general rate case for Carolina Power and Light Company. The appellants argued that the Commission erred by allowing a fuel cost increase via a separate expedited proceeding under G.S. 62-134(e) and then incorporating it into the general rate case without full inquiry into the reasonableness of those costs or management practices. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's order, holding that the statute expressly authorizes the separate fuel adjustment mechanism with opportunities for intervention and hearing, that the Commission was bound to recognize the utility's statutory right to use it, and that the resulting rates were supported by the record and presumed just and reasonable. The court found no error in declining to revisit the same fuel costs in the general rate case while noting that efficiency issues could be addressed there.

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether a prior right-of-way agreement reserved direct access for property owners to highway ramps or only indirect access via service roads, and whether the owners were entitled to compensation after highway construction created a cul-de-sac and temporarily altered traffic patterns near their motel property. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, holding that the agreement provided only indirect access to the ramps (treated as part of the main highway) and that reasonable alternative access via new connecting roads satisfied the agreement, so no compensation was due for circuity of travel or construction-related interference. The decision relied on similar precedent interpreting comparable language, the principle that mere inconvenience from changed access is not compensable when reasonable access remains, and the exclusion of expert testimony on contract interpretation as a legal question for the court. Evidence of temporary access issues was deemed irrelevant because total cutoff of access was not shown.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ownership of the proceeds from a money market savings certificate issued after the death of Ranee K. Threatte. Plaintiff, the decedent's father, sought a declaratory judgment that a joint signature card created a right of survivorship in his favor, while defendant challenged the entry of summary judgment on that basis. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the signature card signed by both parties expressly established a joint account with right of survivorship under G.S. 41-2.1 and controlled disposition of the certificate, even after its renewal in the decedent's name alone. The reasoning relied on the card's language matching the statutory form, its placement with the original and renewal certificates, and supporting affidavits showing the decedent's intent, with no genuine factual disputes requiring trial.

propertyprocedure