{ "id": 8526298, "name": "SOUTHERN GLOVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., JOYCE FIDLER and husband, LEONARD C. FIDLER, JANICE HARVEY and husband, WILLIAM J. HARVEY v. CITY OF NEWTON", "name_abbreviation": "Southern Glove Manufacturing Co. v. City of Newton", "decision_date": "1983-09-06", "docket_number": "No. 8225SC1039", "first_page": "754", "last_page": "757", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "63 N.C. App. 754" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "152" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562761 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "855" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561245 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559728 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0021-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 303, "char_count": 5012, "ocr_confidence": 0.843, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08, "percentile": 0.5230525022887434 }, "sha256": "8b228367febc8655bd16186f21c62bd0774f4c61bd23191ce895203a837a6b22", "simhash": "1:2207e5af36e18bb7", "word_count": 832 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:10.514065+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Webb and Braswell concur." ], "parties": [ "SOUTHERN GLOVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., JOYCE FIDLER and husband, LEONARD C. FIDLER, JANICE HARVEY and husband, WILLIAM J. HARVEY v. CITY OF NEWTON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nAlthough the petitioners were deleted from the annexation ordinance in this case, a separate annexation proceeding, which included the petitioners\u2019 land, was begun on 19 May 1982. Review of that proceeding is currently pending in Superior Court.\nThe petitioners\u2019 primary argument is that the annexation statutes do not provide for remand by a superior court judge to the City in a case like this one. They argue that the three possible dispositions on remand listed in G.S. 160A-50(g) are exclusive. We disagree.\nThat statute says that the superior court may affirm the action of the governing board without change, or it may remand to the municipal governing board for one of three dispositions, none of which is applicable here. G.S. 160A-50(g) does not say, however, that these are the only dispositions of an ordinance on remand.\nThe burden is on the petitioners to show by competent evidence that the City failed to meet the statutory requirements or that there was irregularity in the proceedings which materially prejudiced their substantive rights. Food Town Stores, Inc. v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21, 25, 265 S.E. 2d 123, 126 (1980).\nThe court\u2019s review is limited to these inquiries: (1) Did the municipality comply with the statutory procedures? (2) If not, will petitioners \u201csuffer material injury\u201d by reason of the municipality\u2019s failure to comply? (3) Does the character of the area specified for annexation meet the requirements of G.S. 160-453.16 [now in G.S. 160A-45 to -56] as applied to petitioners\u2019 property? G.S. 160A-453.18(a) and (f) [now in G.S. 160A-45 to -56].\nIn re: Annexation Ordinance, 278 N.C. 641, 646-47, 180 S.E. 2d 851, 855 (1971).\nIt is correct that G.S. 160A-50 does not explicitly empower a superior court judge to remand an annexation ordinance upon a City\u2019s motion to exclude a landowner who originally was covered by it. But we see no \u201cmaterial injury\u201d to the petitioners by the remand in this case.\nThe end result of the ordinance that is before us in this case is that the petitioners are not part of the City of Newton. We cannot use this appeal to decide the merits of the second annexation ordinance adopted by the respondent which included the petitioners. That is a separate proceeding.\nWe refuse to strictly interpret these statutes and find error. Such an action would contravene the intent of the Legislature, which is to obtain a meaningful review of annexation ordinances. See In re: Annexation Ordinance, 284 N.C. 442, 456, 202 S.E. 2d 143, 152 (1974).\nWe affirm the remand by the trial judge to delete the petitioners\u2019 land in this case.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Webb and Braswell concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Williams & Pannell, by Martin C. Pannell and Mullen, Holland and Cooper, by James Mullen, for petitioner-appellants.", "Sigmon, Sigmon and Isenhower, by Jesse C. Sigmon, Jr., for defendant-respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SOUTHERN GLOVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., JOYCE FIDLER and husband, LEONARD C. FIDLER, JANICE HARVEY and husband, WILLIAM J. HARVEY v. CITY OF NEWTON\nNo. 8225SC1039\n(Filed 6 September 1983)\nMunicipal Corporations \u00a7 2.4\u2014 annexation ordinance \u2014 authority to remand for deletion of landowners\nAlthough not explicitly authorized by G.S. 160A-50, a superior court judge had authority to remand an annexation ordinance to the city governing board upon the city\u2019s motion to exclude landowners who were originally covered by the ordinance.\nAppeal by petitioners from Ferrell, Judge. Judgment entered 31 July 1982 in Superior Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 August 1983.\nThe petitioners brought this action to review exclusion from the City\u2019s annexation ordinance.\nOn 2 March 1982, the City adopted an annexation ordinance. The petitioners filed a petition for review of that ordinance in Superior Court on 31 March 1982.\nAt a pre-trial conference on 14 May 1982 in which the parties were represented by counsel, the City\u2019s counsel said that it \u00a1wished to delete the petitioners\u2019 property from the proceeding. The trial judge instructed the City\u2019s counsel to file a written motion with that request.\nOn 17 May 1982, the City filed the motion and served it by mail on the petitioners\u2019 counsel. On 18 May 1982, the trial judge signed an order permitting the City to delete the petitioners\u2019 property and remanded the proceeding to the City for appropriate action by its governing board. The City took that action on the same day. The order and amended ordinance were served on the petitioners\u2019 counsel by mail on 18 May 1982.\nOn 19 May 1982, the trial judge signed the final judgment which was served on the petitioners\u2019 counsel that day by mail.\nPursuant to a motion in the cause filed by the petitioners to set aside or amend the order and judgment, a hearing was held at which all counsel were present. On 31 July 1982, the trial judge denied the petitioners\u2019 motion to set aside but granted their motion to amend the 18 May 1982 order to the extent that it stated that the petitioners did not object to that order. The petitioners appealed.\nWilliams & Pannell, by Martin C. Pannell and Mullen, Holland and Cooper, by James Mullen, for petitioner-appellants.\nSigmon, Sigmon and Isenhower, by Jesse C. Sigmon, Jr., for defendant-respondent." }, "file_name": "0754-01", "first_page_order": 786, "last_page_order": 789 }