{
  "id": 8622302,
  "name": "LAURA S. BIZZELL v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF GOLDSBORO et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bizzell v. Board of Aldermen",
  "decision_date": "1926-10-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3386,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "sha256": "e83edb91ec4a237c9951a20ec0786def8afcfd9e20797d8fbd29b528bd337da9",
    "simhash": "1:138f4e06ff874631",
    "word_count": 572
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stacy, C. J., dissenting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LAURA S. BIZZELL v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF GOLDSBORO et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaRxsoN, J.\nIn Eleanor Bizzell v. Board of Aldermen, ante, 348, we said: \u201cWe do not think that the reference in the pleadings to the acts of the city planning commission of the city of Goldsboro enters into this controversy, although it may be noted that by a vote of two to one the commission recommended that the permit be granted.\u201d\nIn the present case the city planning commission, by a vote of two to one recommended that the permit be not granted. We think this ease presents practically the same questions presented in the Eleanor Bizzell case, supra.\nAt the Special Session 1921 (Public-Local Laws, ch. 169), was passed: \u201cAn act providing for the establishment of planning commissions in the cities and towns of North Carolina, and prescribing the powers and duties of such commission.\u201d This act applied to counties of Buncombe and New Hanover and made applicable to Wayne. Ch. 343, Public-Local Laws 1925.\nAt the General Session 1923 (Public Laws, ch. 250) was passed: \u201cAn act to empower cities and \"towns to adopt zoning regulations.\u201d\n3 C. S., ch. 56, Art. 11(c), Zoning Regulations.\nThe ordinance of the board .of aldermen of the city of Goldsboro of 19 October, 1925, creating the city planning commission for the city of Goldsboro (under authority of the legislative acts, supra, expressly limits its power to the consideration and supervision of new subdivisions of property which might be opened within the city of Goldsboro or within a mile of its limits. No districts or zones have been established or regulations made. In fact, defendants say in their brief: \u201cAt the time of this application and at the time it was denied by the board of aldermen, the planning commission was working on a plan for district-ing and zoning the city, but had not completed its plan or made any report thereon.\u201d\nThe laws regulating zoning and districting under legislative author- . ity in the above recited acts were not carried out \u2014 no notice, public hearing, etc., as required (Laws 1921, secs. 4-10; Laws 1923, sec. 4), and have no application in the present action.\nIn fact the zoning regulations, 3 C. S., latter part of 2776(s) (1923, ch. 250, sec. 2), says: \"All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or hind of building throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts.\u201d\nPor the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.\nStacy, C. J., dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaRxsoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh Dortch and Dickinson <& Freeman for plaintiff.",
      "D. C. Humphrey and Kenneth C. R\u00f3yall for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LAURA S. BIZZELL v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF GOLDSBORO et al.\n(Filed 20 October, 1926.)\nMunicipal Corporations \u2014 Cities and Towns \u2014 Ordinances\u2014Constitutional Law \u2014 Zoning Districts \u2014 Statutes.\nUnder tbe provisions of tbe Zoning Statute, 3 C. S., 2776(s), (Laws of 1923, cb. 250, sec. 2), tbe regulations prescribed shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout eacl; district, and tbe regulations of one district may differ from those of tbe others, and can have no application to the question of tbe rights of tbe governmental body of tbe city refusing to issue a permit for a gasoline filling station, in denial of tbe right of an applicant for such license under an invalid ordinance.\nStacy, C. X, dissenting.\nAppeal by defendants from Sinclair, J., WayNE Superior Court, from order at Chambers, April, 1926. Affirmed.\nHugh Dortch and Dickinson <& Freeman for plaintiff.\nD. C. Humphrey and Kenneth C. R\u00f3yall for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}