{
  "id": 12168991,
  "name": "PINEWOOD MANOR MOBILE HOMES, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pinewood Manor Mobile Homes, Inc. v. North Carolina Manufactured Housing Board",
  "decision_date": "1987-03-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 8613SC662",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "566",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 N.C. App. 564"
    }
  ],
  "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": "245 S.E. 2d 234",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "235"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555701
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "780"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/36/0778-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 4152,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.86796124889903e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9003602140510895
    },
    "sha256": "e0129cf5c71d8b064cf25395b60a829179515d71badae7f0e7d8d4521d811ed2",
    "simhash": "1:4f1d51725c39111a",
    "word_count": 688
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:23.119892+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PINEWOOD MANOR MOBILE HOMES, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nPetitioner contends that the trial court erred in granting the Board\u2019s motion to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A. We do not agree.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that \u201c[i]n order to obtain judicial review of a final agency decision under this Chapter, the person seeking review must file a petition in the Superior Court of Wake County . . . .\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45 was rewritten and became N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45 in 1985. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45 allows a person seeking review of an administrative decision to file a petition either \u201cin the Superior Court of Wake County or in the superior court of the county where the petitioner resides.\u201d However, 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 746, \u00a7 19 provides that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B \u201cshall not affect contested cases commenced before January 1, 1986.\u201d\nPetitioner maintains that no contest existed prior to 1 January 1986 and therefore N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B should apply. However, both the complaints and the notices of hearing were filed prior to 1 January 1986. While N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A is silent as to the time of commencement of an action, under Rule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a case begins with the filing of a complaint and issuance of a notice of hearing to the affected parties. In Ready Mix Concrete v. Sales Corp., 36 N.C. App. 778, 245 S.E. 2d 234 (1978), this Court stated that \u201c[u]nder G.S. 1A-1, Rule 3, an action is commenced when a complaint is filed or when a summons is issued.\u201d 36 N.C. App. at 780, 245 S.E. 2d at 235. Therefore, by analogizing the Administrative Procedure Act to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the case was commenced prior to 1 January 1986.\nWe find that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B has no application in this case, as the action was clearly commenced before 1 January 1986. The decision below should be affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph G. Jorgensen, attorney for petitioner appellant.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Angeline M. Maletto, attorney for respondent appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PINEWOOD MANOR MOBILE HOMES, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD\nNo. 8613SC662\n(Filed 3 March 1987)\nAdministrative Law \u00a75\u2014 appeal from ruling of administrative board \u2014proper county for filing petition\nThe trial court properly granted respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss the petition for review of two administrative rulings by respondent on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45 provided that the person seeking review must file a petition in the Superior Court of Wake County; that statute was rewritten and became N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45, providing that a petition for review could be filed either in the Superior Court of Wake County or in the superior court of the county where the petitioner resided; N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45 was not to affect contested cases commenced before 1 January 1986; both the complaints and the notices of hearing in this case were filed prior to 1 January 1986, and the case was therefore commenced prior to 1 January 1986; and the Superior Court of Columbus County was therefore without jurisdiction.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Clark, Judge. Order entered 7 April 1986 in Superior Court, COLUMBUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 December 1986.\nPetitioner, Pinewood Manor Mobile Homes, Inc. (Pinewood), filed a petition for review in the Superior Court of Columbus County for review of two administrative rulings of the North Carolina Manufactured Housing Board (the Board). These rulings found Pinewood in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-143.20 for misrepresenting the length of a mobile home that it sold and in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-143.13(8) for failing to appear before the Board upon due notice of a hearing. The rulings were issued on 16 January 1986 and 5 March 1986, but both resulted from contested cases commenced prior to 1 January 1986.\nThe Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A, on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the Board\u2019s motion. From this decision, petitioner appeals.\nRalph G. Jorgensen, attorney for petitioner appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Angeline M. Maletto, attorney for respondent appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 594
}
