{
  "id": 1511411,
  "name": "AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tucker v. Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment",
  "decision_date": "2003-02-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 68A02",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "658",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "356 N.C. 658"
    }
  ],
  "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": "557 S.E.2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9363630
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/148/0052-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1299,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.265208206659907e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6134311305408153
    },
    "sha256": "72b43f99494104487262335edbb9660de8ddc8a634523e7ea87aa9a19fef7f0f",
    "simhash": "1:281426d8704326dc",
    "word_count": 197
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:54.672071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAs to the issue on direct appeal based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.\nAFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P., by John H. Carmichael, for petitioner-appellants.",
      "Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., by James O. Cobb, for respondent-appellee the Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment.",
      "Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., by Paul J. Osowski, for respondent-appellees Marshall Gus Thomas, Jr., and Rhonda Golden-Thomas."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents\nNo. 68A02\n(Filed 28 February 2003)\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 148 N.C. App. 52, 557 S.E.2d 631 (2001), reversing an order and judgment entered 31 July 2000 by Judge Robert P. Johnston in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 3 February 2003.\nKennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P., by John H. Carmichael, for petitioner-appellants.\nRuff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., by James O. Cobb, for respondent-appellee the Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment.\nNelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., by Paul J. Osowski, for respondent-appellees Marshall Gus Thomas, Jr., and Rhonda Golden-Thomas."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 708,
  "last_page_order": 708
}