Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 N.C. App. 77 - Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst

99 N.C. App. 77 - Pinehurst Area Realty v. Pinehurst’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2010

7 state decisions

40199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach · 81 N.C. App. 369 - Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach · State v. Tolley · 30 N.C. App. 611 - Stutts v. Swaim

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Zoning claims raise important public policy considerations. There is a strong need for finality with respect to zoning matters so that landowners may use their property without fear of a challenge years after zoning has apparently been determined. North Carolina courts have not held that violations of federal constitutional claims in zoning actions extend the usual nine-month statute of limitations. In Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, 81 N.C. App. 369 , 344 S.E.2d 357 , disc. rev. denied, 318 N.C. 417 , 349 S.E.2d 600 (1986), this Court held that plaintiff’s claims for federal due process violations were barred by the nine-month statute of limitations. It is noteworthy that Sherrill was decided after Wilson, supra. We hold plaintiff’s challenge to the 1985 zoning law based on alleged state and federal constitutional violations is barred by the nine-month statute of limitations. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Plaintiff characterizes this action as “a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights” and states that the United States Supreme Court in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 , 85 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1985), has directed that such actions “be subject to the relevant state’s personal injury statute of limitations” which in North Carolina is three years. The Wilson court was addressing federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 when it chose to apply the personal injury statute of limitations. We do not find Wilson controlling.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A cause of action as to the validity of any zoning ordinance, or amendment thereto, adopted under this Article or other applicable law shall accrue upon adoption of the ordinance, or amendment thereto, and shall be brought within nine months as provided in G.S. 1-54.1.”
    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.