{
  "id": 139358,
  "name": "ROGER D. MESSER and WILLIAM L. HUNT v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill",
  "decision_date": "1997-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 72A97",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "261",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "346 N.C. 259"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "479 S.E.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11865149
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/125/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E.2d 322",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568034
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "290"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E.2d 641",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "650"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559849
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2489393,
        2488819,
        2489452,
        2492647
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0714-01",
        "/nc/325/0714-03",
        "/nc/325/0714-04",
        "/nc/325/0714-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 S.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "15"
        },
        {
          "page": "15"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2489703
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "364"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 L. Ed. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 U.S. 929",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1531938,
        1532133,
        1531912,
        1532170,
        1532010,
        1532202,
        1532021,
        1531990,
        1532122,
        1532092,
        1531806
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/442/0929-02",
        "/us/442/0929-01",
        "/us/442/0929-10",
        "/us/442/0929-08",
        "/us/442/0929-11",
        "/us/442/0929-03",
        "/us/442/0929-04",
        "/us/442/0929-09",
        "/us/442/0929-05",
        "/us/442/0929-06",
        "/us/442/0929-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.E.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "912"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565310
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "147"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "451 S.E.2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "866",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 N.C. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2556344
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "370",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/339/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 S.E.2d 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779714
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E.2d 155",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559865
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "130-31"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "479 S.E.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11865149
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/125/0057-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 6072,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.889747743444055e-07,
      "percentile": 0.728848670327884
    },
    "sha256": "fa7ee9eb1309f443d1bbc17701c108c80464f562a16c3c1302874fd6b9f51678",
    "simhash": "1:3c484eb32895d3bc",
    "word_count": 1005
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:00.247328+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROGER D. MESSER and WILLIAM L. HUNT v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nBy this action, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the rezoning by defendant-town of an undeveloped tract of land consisting of approximately 150 acres and located in the Laurel Hill area of Chapel Hill, a part of defendant-town\u2019s extraterritorial zoning and planning jurisdiction. Plaintiff William L. Hunt, now deceased and represented in this action by the executors of his estate, acquired the tract in 1937. Plaintiff Roger D. Messer is alleged to be an interested party with respect to the property.\nThe trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 125 N.C. App. 57, 479 S.E.2d 221 (1997). Judge Greene dissented, and plaintiffs exercised their right to appeal on the basis of the dissent. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) (1995).\nWe need not reach the merits of the appeal. On 4 April 1997 defendant filed with this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of mootness. Documents attached to the motion establish, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that on 4 April 1996, while plaintiffs\u2019 appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, plaintiff William L. Hunt (since deceased) sold the property in question to Marin Development Company for the sum of $1,500,000. Defendant-town contends that this renders plaintiffs\u2019 appeal moot. We agree.\n\u201cStanding to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment exists where the litigant has suffered, or is likely to suffer, a direct injury as a result of the law\u2019s enforcement.\u201d Maines v. City of Greensboro, 300 N.C. 126, 130-31, 265 S.E.2d 155, 158 (1980). Standing is initially determined by whether an actual controversy exists between the parties when the action is filed. See Sharpe v. Park Newspapers of Lumberton, Inc., 317 N.C. 579, 584, 347 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1986). However,\n[w]henever during the course of litigation it develops that. . . the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain an action merely to determine abstract propositions of law. If the issues before the court become moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response is to dismiss the action.\nSimeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 370, 451 S.E.2d 858, 866 (1994) (citations omitted); see also In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979).\nThe 4 April 1996 transfer of the property from plaintiff William L. Hunt to Marin Development Company clearly moots any controversy between him (now his executors) and defendant-town as to the constitutionality of the amendment to the zoning ordinance. The complaint does not allege any interest in plaintiff Roger D. Messer sufficient to allow him to maintain a constitutional challenge to the amendment apart from plaintiff Hunt.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 contention that their claim for damages renders the mootness doctrine inapplicable is without merit. The sale of the property for the sum of $1,500,000 establishes beyond peradventure that the property continued to have \u201ca practical use and a reasonable value\u201d following the amendment to the zoning ordinance. Finch v. City of Durham, 325 N.C. 352, 364, 384 S.E.2d 8, 15, reh\u2019g denied, 325 N.C. 714, 388 S.E.2d 452 (1989). A mere diminution in value from the rezoning, even a severe one, is not compensable. Id. at 365, 384 S.E.2d at 15.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 contention that defendant-town has waived the mootness question by failing to raise it in the trial court or the Court of Appeals is also without merit. \u201cWhenever it appears that no genuine controversy between the parties exists, the Court will dismiss the action ex mero motu.\u201d Stanley v. Department of Conservation & Dev., 284 N.C. 15, 29, 199 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1973).\nFor the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed as moot. \u201cWhile we express no opinion as to its correctness, the better practice in this circumstance is to vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals.\u201d State ex rel. Util. Comm\u2019n v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 289 N.C. 286, 290, 221 S.E.2d 322, 325 (1976). Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated.\nAPPEAL DISMISSED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert A. Hassell and Lyman & Ash, by Cletus P. Lyman and Michael S. Fettner, for plaintiff-appellants.",
      "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Susan K. Burkhart, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROGER D. MESSER and WILLIAM L. HUNT v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL\nNo. 72A97\n(Filed 6 June 1997)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 175 (NCI4th)\u2014 rezoning \u2014 constitutional challenge \u2014 sale of property \u2014 mootness of appeal\nA challenge to the constitutionality of a rezoning was dismissed as moot where, of the two plaintiffs, the heirs of one had sold the property to a third party and the complaint of the other did not allege any interest sufficient to allow him to maintain an independent constitutional challenge. Plaintiffs\u2019 contention that their claim for damages renders the mootness doctrine inapplicable is without merit; the sale of the property establishes beyond peradventure that the property continued to have a practical use and reasonable value and a mere diminution in value from the rezoning, even a severe one, is not compensable. The contention that the town waived the mootness question when it was not raised in the trial court or the Court of Appeals was also without merit; the Court will dismiss the action ex mero mo tu whenever it appears that no genuine controversy between the parties exists.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 640 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiffs pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 125 N.C. App. 57, 479 S.E.2d 221 (1997), affirming an order entered by Stephens (Donald W.), J., on 2 March 1995 in Superior Court, Orange County, allowing defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 May 1997.\nRobert A. Hassell and Lyman & Ash, by Cletus P. Lyman and Michael S. Fettner, for plaintiff-appellants.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Susan K. Burkhart, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 297,
  "last_page_order": 299
}