{
  "id": 1511335,
  "name": "G. WILLIAM DOBO and wife, BARBARA B. DOBO, Petitioners v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON and CITY OF WILMINGTON, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dobo v. Zoning Board of Adjustment",
  "decision_date": "2003-02-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 256A02",
  "first_page": "656",
  "last_page": "656",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "356 N.C. 656"
    }
  ],
  "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": "562 S.E.2d 108",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.C. App. 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9131417
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/149/0701-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 126,
    "char_count": 1444,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2418883580506078e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6080908578067679
    },
    "sha256": "c07df99868665a874fea897fe1591f3a1ba1155681e8fb6cdd1903e46d83e77c",
    "simhash": "1:105b64bb45a3a5fc",
    "word_count": 227
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:54.672071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. WILLIAM DOBO and wife, BARBARA B. DOBO, Petitioners v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON and CITY OF WILMINGTON, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, New Hanover County, for proceedings not inconsistent with the dissenting opinion.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth A. Shanklin and Matthew A. Nichols for petitioner-appellants.",
      "Thomas C. Pollard, City Attorney, and Dolores M. Williams, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. WILLIAM DOBO and wife, BARBARA B. DOBO, Petitioners v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON and CITY OF WILMINGTON, Respondents\nNo. 256A02\n(Filed 28 February 2003)\nZoning\u2014 residential area \u2014 sawmill\u2014accessory use\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in the case is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that landowners\u2019 use of a sawmill on residentially zoned property for nonindustrial and nonmanufacturing purposes did not violate a city zoning ordinance but was a permitted accessory use.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 149 N.C. App. 701, 562 S.E.2d 108 (2002), affirming an order entered 5 October 2000 by Judge Stafford G. Bullock in Superior Court, New Hanover County. On 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 4 February 2003.\nKenneth A. Shanklin and Matthew A. Nichols for petitioner-appellants.\nThomas C. Pollard, City Attorney, and Dolores M. Williams, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0656-01",
  "first_page_order": 706,
  "last_page_order": 706
}