Warner v. W & O, INCORPORATED’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Union County (1986), Town of Hillsborough v. Smith (1969)
42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lee v. . Board of Adjustment · In Re W. P. Rose Builders Supply Co. · Stowe v. Burke · Kottler v. Martin · Hall v. Misenheimer.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The permit created no vested right; it merely authorized per-mittee to act. If he, at a time when it was lawful, exercised the privilege granted him, he thereby acquired a property right which would be protected; but he could not remain inactive and thereby deny to the municipality the right to make needed changes in its ordinances. It is not necessary for the permittee to show that the construction authorized by the permit has been completed before the ordinance is amended. He is protected if, acting in good faith, he has made expenditures on the faith of the permit at a time when the act was lawful. Stowe v. Burke, 255 N.C. 527 , 122 S.E. 2d 374 ; In Re Appeal of Supply Co., 202 N.C. 496 , 163 S.E. 462 ; 101 C.J.S., 1006-7, 58 Am. Jur. 1041 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The law accords protection to nonconforming users who, relying on the authorization given them, have made substantial expenditures in an honest belief that the project would not violate declared public policy. It does not protect one who makes expenditures with knowledge that the expenditures are made for a purpose declared unlawful by duly enacted ordinance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.