{
  "id": 4149431,
  "name": "LAMAR OCI SOUTH CORPORATION d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Asheville, Petitioner v. STANLY COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and STANLY COUNTY, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lamar OCI South Corp. v. Stanly County Zoning Board of Adjustment",
  "decision_date": "2008-12-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 485A07",
  "first_page": "670",
  "last_page": "670",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "362 N.C. 670"
    }
  ],
  "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": "650 S.E.2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639311
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/650/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N.C. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8154472
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/186/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3185678006710044
    },
    "sha256": "60092b57f0cb44eabac697623ba26a943428e9c6a960bde2f5ee097f7e11b9c8",
    "simhash": "1:1c7937b964d6a4fc",
    "word_count": 184
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:47:03.529976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LAMAR OCI SOUTH CORPORATION d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Asheville, Petitioner v. STANLY COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and STANLY COUNTY, 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": [
      "Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A., by Craig D. Justus, for petitioner-appellee/appellant.",
      "Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, by Robert C. Stephens and Mark R. Kutny, for respondent-appellants/ appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LAMAR OCI SOUTH CORPORATION d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Asheville, Petitioner v. STANLY COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and STANLY COUNTY, Respondents\nNo. 485A07\n(Filed 12 December 2008)\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 186 N.C. App. 44, 650 S.E.2d 37 (2007), reversing an order entered on 19 April 2006 and affirming an order entered on 28 April 2006, both by Judge Mark E. Klass in Superior Court, Stanly County. On 6 March 2008, the Supreme Court allowed petitioner\u2019s petition for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October 2008.\nVan Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A., by Craig D. Justus, for petitioner-appellee/appellant.\nHamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, by Robert C. Stephens and Mark R. Kutny, for respondent-appellants/ appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0670-01",
  "first_page_order": 748,
  "last_page_order": 748
}