{ "id": 12421678, "name": "TOWN OF BOONE, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant. COUNTY OF WATAUGA, Intervenor-Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Town of Boone v. State", "decision_date": "2016-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 93A15-2", "first_page": "126", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "369 N.C. 126" } ], "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": "442 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1531938, 1532133, 1531912, 1532010, 1532170, 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/442/0929-11", "/us/442/0929-08", "/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": "361 S.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4726720, 4725094, 4724585, 4723949, 4724798 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0797-02", "/nc/320/0797-03", "/nc/320/0797-05", "/nc/320/0797-01", "/nc/320/0797-04" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 N.C. App. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12126192 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/86/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 541", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 640", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 732", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 1521", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 S.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678-79", "parenthetical": "concluding that an act removing from the Nash County Board of Health the power to appoint a county health officer was a local act relating to health in violation of the Article H limitations on local acts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11299785 ], "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143-44", "parenthetical": "concluding that an act removing from the Nash County Board of Health the power to appoint a county health officer was a local act relating to health in violation of the Article H limitations on local acts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616489 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203", "parenthetical": "concluding that an act expressly restricting certain express powers of the Randolph County Board of Education violated the Article II limitations on local acts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624661 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379-80", "parenthetical": "concluding that an act expressly restricting certain express powers of the Randolph County Board of Education violated the Article II limitations on local acts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4754562, 4758821, 4753839, 4753456, 4748855 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0493-02", "/nc/312/0493-01", "/nc/312/0493-04", "/nc/312/0493-03", "/nc/312/0493-05" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525763 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.E. 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760", "parenthetical": "recognizing validity of extension of corporate boundaries through annexation by local act" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269620 ], "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69", "parenthetical": "recognizing validity of extension of corporate boundaries through annexation by local act" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1912, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582", "parenthetical": "recognizing the legislature's authority to allow the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction outside municipal limits by local act" }, { "page": "582, 684", "parenthetical": "upholding a City of Greensboro ordinance regulating hog farming within one-fourth mile of the corporate limits, adopted pursuant to the 1911 statutory delegation of authority by charter amendment" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. 635", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656215 ], "year": 1912, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636", "parenthetical": "recognizing the legislature's authority to allow the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction outside municipal limits by local act" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471", "parenthetical": "upholding a local act that extended the municipal limits of one town and repealed statutes under which adjacent towns were organized" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624933 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168", "parenthetical": "upholding a local act that extended the municipal limits of one town and repealed statutes under which adjacent towns were organized" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E.2d 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206-07", "parenthetical": "The legislature may create a municipality by special act and may provide procedures for annexation by special act." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576424 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725", "parenthetical": "The legislature may create a municipality by special act and may provide procedures for annexation by special act." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296", "parenthetical": "stating that setting boundaries under Article VII, Section 1 is a \"permissible legislative function\" \"left to legislative discretion\" (citing, inter alia, Hunter, 207 U.S. at 178-79, 28 S. Ct. at 46, 52 L. Ed. at 159)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.C. App. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550244 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532", "parenthetical": "stating that setting boundaries under Article VII, Section 1 is a \"permissible legislative function\" \"left to legislative discretion\" (citing, inter alia, Hunter, 207 U.S. at 178-79, 28 S. Ct. at 46, 52 L. Ed. at 159)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/34/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561018 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25", "parenthetical": "recognizing the General Assembly's authority to create, destroy, or change the boundaries of any political subdivision" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552165 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273", "parenthetical": "recognizing the General Assembly's authority to create, destroy, or change the boundaries of any political subdivision" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109", "parenthetical": "\"The extension of boundaries of cities has been held to be apolitical decision -\" (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "108" }, { "page": "110" }, { "page": "110" }, { "page": "110-11" }, { "page": "111" }, { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485241 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502", "parenthetical": "\"The extension of boundaries of cities has been held to be apolitical decision -\" (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "707", "parenthetical": "Municipalities have no inherent constitutional right to their boundaries and derive authority only from the powers delegated by the legislature, (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564387 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16-17", "parenthetical": "Municipalities have no inherent constitutional right to their boundaries and derive authority only from the powers delegated by the legislature, (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 N.C. (11 Ired.) 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1850, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560, 563-64", "parenthetical": "upholding the legislature's \"power to create and abolish\" Polk County" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683316 ], "year": 1883, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490-91, 494-95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/88/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "502 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362", "parenthetical": "\"The General Assembly may, by special or local act, create municipalities and change the boundaries of municipalities.\" (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659832 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "668", "parenthetical": "\"The General Assembly may, by special or local act, create municipalities and change the boundaries of municipalities.\" (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "668" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E.2d 512", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "514", "parenthetical": "\"Constitutional provisions should be construed in consonance with the objects and purposes in contemplation at the time of their adoption.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613723 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444", "parenthetical": "\"Constitutional provisions should be construed in consonance with the objects and purposes in contemplation at the time of their adoption.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 L. Ed. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 S. Ct. 2859", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919", "parenthetical": "considering constitutional amendments \"in pari materia with the other sections of our Constitution which it was intended to supplement\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565310 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "159", "parenthetical": "considering constitutional amendments \"in pari materia with the other sections of our Constitution which it was intended to supplement\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 S.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94", "parenthetical": "relying on the 1968 Constitution Commission Report to \"ascertain[ ] the intent of the framers and adopters, [and] the object and purpose of the revision\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570279 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635", "parenthetical": "relying on the 1968 Constitution Commission Report to \"ascertain[ ] the intent of the framers and adopters, [and] the object and purpose of the revision\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379871 ], "weight": 17, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" }, { "page": "535", "parenthetical": "\"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.\"" }, { "page": "492", "parenthetical": "\"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.\"" }, { "page": "83-5", "parenthetical": "Apr. 7, 1983" }, { "page": "87-12", "parenthetical": "Dec. 22, 1987" }, { "page": "92-03", "parenthetical": "Sept. 3, 1992" }, { "page": "98-04", "parenthetical": "Nov. 19, 1998" }, { "page": "99-02", "parenthetical": "May 27, 1999" }, { "page": "83-2" }, { "page": "83-5" }, { "page": "87-12" }, { "page": "92-03" }, { "page": "98-04" }, { "page": "99-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "742" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2521551 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 415", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491505 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380", "parenthetical": "\"When a new governmental agency is established by the Legislature, such as a municipal corporation, it takes control of all the affairs over which it is given authority, to the exclusion of other governmental agencies.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623037 ], "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22-23", "parenthetical": "\"When a new governmental agency is established by the Legislature, such as a municipal corporation, it takes control of all the affairs over which it is given authority, to the exclusion of other governmental agencies.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "648", "parenthetical": "Ordinary rules of grammar apply." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2508179 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134", "parenthetical": "Ordinary rules of grammar apply." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.E.2d 505", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510-11", "parenthetical": "The constitution is construed for its plain meaning." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2985064 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97", "parenthetical": "The constitution is construed for its plain meaning." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8688994 ], "year": 1875, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222", "parenthetical": "Political subdivisions \"are parts and parcels of the State, organized for the convenience of local self-government.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/73/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E.2d 803", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "809" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611548 ], "year": 1946, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 U.S. 161", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3640845 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1907, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "178" }, { "page": "46" }, { "page": "159" }, { "page": "178-79" }, { "page": "46" }, { "page": "159" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/207/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207", "parenthetical": "quoting Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S. Ct. 40,46, 52 L. Ed. 151, 159 (1907)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557757 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "50", "parenthetical": "quoting Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S. Ct. 40,46, 52 L. Ed. 151, 159 (1907)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 1126", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 S. Ct. 353", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 U.S. 700", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3916122, 3916996 ], "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/281/0700-01", "/us/281/0700-02" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627" }, { "page": "628", "parenthetical": "The legislature may extend by special act extraterritorial jurisdiction and the authority of a municipality to provide services outside its corporate limits." }, { "page": "626", "parenthetical": "\"The general rule is that a municipal corporation has no extraterritorial powers .. . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631469 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746" }, { "page": "748" }, { "page": "744" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696709 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1884, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "438" }, { "page": "438" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/90/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "789 S.E.2d 454", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2016, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" }, { "page": "457" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 887", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "889", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2508874 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334-35", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627463 ], "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478", "parenthetical": "quoting Glenn v. Bd. of Educ., 210 N.C. 525, 529-30, 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491477 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449", "parenthetical": "quoting Glenn v. Bd. of Educ., 210 N.C. 525, 529-30, 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 S.E.2d 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151702 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S.E. 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1895, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "787", "parenthetical": "\"[P]ower resides with the people and is exercised by their representatives in the General Assembly.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655151 ], "year": 1895, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570", "parenthetical": "\"[P]ower resides with the people and is exercised by their representatives in the General Assembly.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/116/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 U.S. 45", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9009 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/360/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S.E.2d 853", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" }, { "page": "861", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620510 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "1961 N.C. Sess. Laws 748", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1959 N.C. Sess. Laws 1354", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1955 N.C. Sess. Laws 1387", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "authorizing municipalities to regulate the subdivision of land within one mile of the corporate limits but excluding Watauga County and fifty-two other counties" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 S.E. 88", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1894, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he jurisdiction of a municipality does not extend beyond [its boundary], in the absence of some other language in the charter . . . .\"" }, { "page": "89", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he legislature unquestionably ha[s] the power to extend the jurisdiction of the town, for police purposes . . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 N.C. 787", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651492 ], "year": 1894, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he jurisdiction of a municipality does not extend beyond [its boundary], in the absence of some other language in the charter . . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0787-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 985", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12035616, 12035130, 12035173, 12035238, 12035081, 12035561, 12035342, 12034992, 12035285, 12035509, 12035449, 12035034, 12035391 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/0985-13", "/us/506/0985-04", "/us/506/0985-05", "/us/506/0985-06", "/us/506/0985-03", "/us/506/0985-12", "/us/506/0985-08", "/us/506/0985-01", "/us/506/0985-07", "/us/506/0985-11", "/us/506/0985-10", "/us/506/0985-02", "/us/506/0985-09" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626169 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217-18" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1918, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "175 N.C. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658305 ], "year": 1918, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 S.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237", "parenthetical": "stating that, \"[f]or standing in a declaratory judgment action, there must be a present, actual controversy at the time the pleading requesting declaratory relief is filed\" (citing Sharpe, 317 N.C. at 584,347 S.E.2d at 29)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915202 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "stating that, \"[f]or standing in a declaratory judgment action, there must be a present, actual controversy at the time the pleading requesting declaratory relief is filed\" (citing Sharpe, 317 N.C. at 584,347 S.E.2d at 29)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611254 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403-04" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886", "parenthetical": "ellipsis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600162 ], "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208", "parenthetical": "ellipsis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E.2d 139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565080 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591-92" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 67", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572792 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508" }, { "page": "510" }, { "page": "510" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 900", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 5, "year": 1901, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661613 ], "year": 1901, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682", "parenthetical": "stating that \"all watercourses are regarded as navigable in law that are navigable in fact\" (quoting State v. Baum, 128 N.C. 600, 604, 38 S.E. 900, 901 (1901)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795930 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300-01", "parenthetical": "stating that \"all watercourses are regarded as navigable in law that are navigable in fact\" (quoting State v. Baum, 128 N.C. 600, 604, 38 S.E. 900, 901 (1901)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E.2d 408", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 12, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" }, { "page": "410-11" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625318 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.C. L. Rev. 340", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "51 S.E.2d 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "734-35" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12168052 ], "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "769" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "615", "parenthetical": "stating that the constitution should be \"construed so as to allow significance to each and every part of it if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380", "parenthetical": "stating that the constitution should be \"construed so as to allow significance to each and every part of it if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1904, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656281 ], "year": 1904, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/137/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 S.E.2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" }, { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "concluding that a local act \"undertak[ing] to create for Madison County, alone, a county board of health and to name its members\" \"conflict[ed] with the constitutional restrictions upon the power of the General Assembly imposed by\" Article II, Section 24" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605330 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" }, { "page": "285-86" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E.2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 18, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "702" }, { "page": "702" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574837 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" }, { "page": "655-56" }, { "page": "208" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S.E. 187", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 4, "year": 1920, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191" }, { "page": "189" }, { "page": "190" }, { "page": "190-91" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "180 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653864 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1920, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449" }, { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "1969 N.C. Sess. Laws 1461,1479,1484", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647-48", "parenthetical": "concluding that a justiciable controversy ' existed between two governmental entities and sufficed to confer standing to seek and obtain a declaration concerning the nature and extent of their disputed powers and duties" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150708 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198-99", "parenthetical": "concluding that a justiciable controversy ' existed between two governmental entities and sufficed to confer standing to seek and obtain a declaration concerning the nature and extent of their disputed powers and duties" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4682052 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S.E.2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627639 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626253 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168175 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "961", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "99" }, { "page": "961", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650", "parenthetical": "quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947, 961 (1968) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "650" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559849 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28", "parenthetical": "quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947, 961 (1968) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 623", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 9, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "New Bern T" }, { "page": "624-25", "parenthetical": "stating that, \"in order to invoke the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act[,] there must be a justiciable controversy between the parties\" (citations omitted)" }, { "page": "626" }, { "page": "624-26" }, { "page": "625" }, { "page": "625" }, { "page": "626" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2541586 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "New Bern T" }, { "page": "559" }, { "page": "561" }, { "page": "558-61" }, { "page": "559" }, { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146", "parenthetical": "concluding that Avery County had standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act in light of this Court's decisions in Afew; Bern I and Town of Emerald Isle" }, { "page": "146" }, { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 787", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139427 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790" }, { "page": "790" }, { "page": "790" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0787-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E.2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770, 773" }, { "page": "772" }, { "page": "772", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "773", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563382 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71, 75-76" }, { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 926", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574096 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 581", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552353 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31-32" }, { "page": "29" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779714 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" }, { "page": "584" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 S.E.2d 792", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "797-99" }, { "page": "798" }, { "page": "798", "parenthetical": "using the stated definition of \"regulate\" in applying Article II, Section 24(1) Q" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4731518 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557-60" }, { "page": "558-59" }, { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E.2d 749", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754-57" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607210 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186-90" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394", "parenthetical": "stating that \"[t]he General Assembly may delegate to a municipality, as an agency of the State, authority to enact ordinances in the exercise of the police power\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558889 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460-61" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 568", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. App. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435598 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/145/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 L. Ed. 2d 431", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "413 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" }, { "page": "289-92" }, { "page": "289-92" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2511641 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "786" }, { "page": "782-86" }, { "page": "782-86" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0761-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 U.S. 511", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1512327 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" }, { "page": "425" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/472/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "678 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354", "parenthetical": "quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 425 (1985)" }, { "page": "354-57" }, { "page": "352, 357" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151090 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338", "parenthetical": "quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 425 (1985)" }, { "page": "340" }, { "page": "338-42" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564079 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 S.E.2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659811 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "584 S.E.2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "762", "parenthetical": "quoting Paul L. Whitfield, P.A. v. Gilchrist, 348 N.C. 39, 42, 497 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1998), and citing Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 534, 299 S.E.2d 618, 625 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491483 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "445", "parenthetical": "quoting Paul L. Whitfield, P.A. v. Gilchrist, 348 N.C. 39, 42, 497 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1998), and citing Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 534, 299 S.E.2d 618, 625 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "16 S.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678-79" }, { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11299785 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142-44" }, { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "314-15", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Const. of 1868, art. II, \u00a7 29 (1917) (now art. II, \u00a7 24(3))" }, { "page": "315" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616489 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732-33", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. Const. of 1868, art. II, \u00a7 29 (1917) (now art. II, \u00a7 24(3))" }, { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485241 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" }, { "page": "500" }, { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "406" }, { "page": "407" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "75 S.E.2d 512", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "514" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613723 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 16, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "New Bern II" }, { "page": "738" }, { "page": "740" }, { "page": "741", "parenthetical": "invalidating legislation that shifted responsibility for enforcing the State Building Code by expanding Craven County's jurisdiction to include certain properties located within New Bern's municipal corporate boundaries as impermissible local legislation relating to health and sanitation" }, { "page": "737-42", "parenthetical": "concluding that legislation shifting the responsibility for enforcing the State Building Code with respect to certain buildings from the City of New Bern to Craven County constituted unconstitutional local acts related to health and sanitation" }, { "page": "740-41" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2521551 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "New Bern II" }, { "page": "434" }, { "page": "438" }, { "page": "440" }, { "page": "433-42" }, { "page": "439-40" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 415", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426-27", "parenthetical": "first alteration in original" }, { "page": "429" }, { "page": "429" }, { "page": "429" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491505 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185-86", "parenthetical": "first alteration in original" }, { "page": "189" }, { "page": "189" }, { "page": "189-90" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491477 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "1961 N.C. Sess. Laws 748", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "1959 N.C. Sess. Laws 1354", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "360 S.E.2d 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760", "parenthetical": "citing City of Raleigh v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 275 N.C. 454, 168 S.E.2d 389 (1969)" }, { "page": "759-63" }, { "page": "761-63" }, { "page": "760" }, { "page": "760", "parenthetical": "concluding that the Town had standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of legislation requiring the Town to maintain facilities providing pedestrian beach access because the action involved apresent actual controversy between the parties (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725980 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646", "parenthetical": "citing City of Raleigh v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 275 N.C. 454, 168 S.E.2d 389 (1969)" }, { "page": "648-52" }, { "page": "646" }, { "page": "645-46" }, { "page": "646" }, { "page": "646" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 479", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633154 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "485", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987)" }, { "page": "486" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E.2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "407", "parenthetical": "quoting Joseph S. Ferrell, Local Legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly, 45 N.C. L. Rev. 340, 391 (1967)" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568518 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691", "parenthetical": "quoting Joseph S. Ferrell, Local Legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly, 45 N.C. L. Rev. 340, 391 (1967)" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E.2d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894-95" }, { "page": "894", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "894", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627170 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518-19" }, { "page": "518" }, { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529-30" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "1 N.C. (Mart.) 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mart.", "case_ids": [ 12134632 ], "year": 1787, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6-7" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/1/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "781 S.E.2d 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2016, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250", "parenthetical": "citing Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5, 6-7 (1787)" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "368 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12209826 ], "year": 2016, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635", "parenthetical": "citing Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5, 6-7 (1787)" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/368/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 720", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4718753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491" }, { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 L. Ed. 2d 697", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6222105, 1148012 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "707" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/us/481/0739-01", "/us/341/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "481 U.S. 739", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6222105 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "745" }, { "page": "2100" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/us/481/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3794414 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.C. L. Rev. 340", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "7 S.E.2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that legislation shifting the responsibility for enforcement of laws affecting the health of the public was barred by Article II, Section 29 (now Article 13, Section 24)" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605330 ], "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that legislation shifting the responsibility for enforcement of laws affecting the health of the public was barred by Article II, Section 29 (now Article 13, Section 24)" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E.2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "702" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574837 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 S.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678-79", "parenthetical": "holding that local statutes that affected the process of appointment of a health officer were unconstitutional because they related to health" }, { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11299785 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142-44", "parenthetical": "holding that local statutes that affected the process of appointment of a health officer were unconstitutional because they related to health" }, { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315" }, { "page": "314-15", "parenthetical": "holding unconstitutional a local act authorizing the board of aldermen and board of commissioners to create a joint city-county board of health" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616489 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732-33" }, { "page": "732-33" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 9, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737-38" }, { "page": "739-40" }, { "page": "740" }, { "page": "740-41" }, { "page": "742" }, { "page": "741" }, { "page": "742" }, { "page": "742", "parenthetical": "holding that the shifting of responsibility for enforcement of the building code affects health and sanitation, and thus, is prohibited by the Local Act Prohibition" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2521551 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433-44" }, { "page": "440" }, { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 415", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 13, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "428" }, { "page": "420" }, { "page": "429" }, { "page": "429" }, { "page": "429", "parenthetical": "first alteration in original" }, { "page": "429", "parenthetical": "concluding that while the intent of the legislation was to prohibit discrimination, the legislation had the \"practical effect of regulating trade\"" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491505 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "188-89" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "681 S.E.2d 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 2 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151702 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0500-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 3205, "char_count": 149197, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.154121191578319e-08, "percentile": 0.38241071197587195 }, "sha256": "5a72dfe27ac5a4457a86e1802fe050e6d051f1dc92bc3d69219be28ab1a59f90", "simhash": "1:832d9560252f4a92", "word_count": 23624 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:28.411797+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2018-10-24", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice HUDSON joins in this concurring opinion." ], "parties": [ "TOWN OF BOONE, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant COUNTY OF WATAUGA, Intervenor-Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "NEWBY, Justice.\nIn this case we consider whether the General Assembly may withdraw the previous extension of a town\u2019s jurisdiction beyond its corporate limits and return governance to the county. The first clause of Article VII, Section 1 of our state constitution recognizes the historic plenary authority of the General Assembly to provide for the \u201corganization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions.\u201d This language acknowledges the legislative power to organize local government and fix the jurisdictional boundaries. Extraterritorial jurisdiction affects the organization of local governmental subdivisions by extending a town\u2019s jurisdiction into the county, thus shifting the political authority over certain subjects from one local government to another. Here, by withdrawing the Town of Boone\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction, the legislature, restored the local jurisdictional boundaries as originally fixed, returning the governance of territory located outside of the Town limits to Watauga County. The limitations imposed by Article II, Section 24 do not apply to an action by the General Assembly establishing or modifying the jurisdictional boundaries of local governmental units. Because the legislative act withdrawing the Town\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction falls squarely within this plenary power, we hold that the act is constitutional, and we reverse the decision of the trial court.\nHistorically, the General Assembly established the governmental jurisdiction of a municipality by fixing the municipality\u2019s corporate limits. See State v. Eason, 114 N.C. 787, 795, 19 S.E. 88, 90 (1894) (\u201c[T]he jurisdiction of a municipality does not extend beyond [its boundary], in the absence of some other language in the charter . . . .\u201d). Beginning in the late 1800s, the General Assembly began to extend the jurisdiction of select municipalities beyond their corporate limits with regard to designated governmental functions. See id. at 792, 19 S.E. at 89 (\u201c[T]he legislature unquestionably ha[s] the power to extend the jurisdiction of the town, for police purposes . . . .\u201d); see also, e.g., Act of Jan. 17, 1911, ch. 2, sec. 27, 1911 N.C. Priv. [Sess.] Laws 3, 17 (extending the City of Greensboro\u2019s jurisdiction for sanitation and the protection of city property for one mile \u201coutside of said city limits\u201d). Each grant of extraterritorial authority was by local act on a city-by-city basis. Despite the growing usage of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the General Assembly precluded municipalities in Watauga County from governing extraterritorially. E.g., Act of May 26, 1955, ch. 1334, 1955 N.C. Sess. Laws 1387 (authorizing municipalities to regulate the subdivision of land within one mile of the corporate limits but excluding Watauga County and fifty-two other counties); see also Act of June 19, 1959, ch. 1204, sec. 1, 1959 N.C. Sess. Laws 1354, 1354 (expressly precluding towns located within Watauga County from governing extraterritorially). In 1961 the General Assembly granted extraterritorial jurisdictional authority to certain municipalities located within Watauga County, including the Town of Boone, over territory not more than one mile beyond their corporate limits. Act of May 30, 1961, ch. 548, sec. 1\u00be, 1961 N.C. Sess. Laws 748, 748. Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes includes the current codification of extraterritorial jurisdiction.\nFor twenty years, the Town did not attempt to govern within the extraterritorial area. In 1981 the Town \u201cinitiate[d] the steps necessary to extend extraterritorial [jurisdiction] to [the] one mile perimeter\u201d surrounding the Town and also sought \u201cpermission from the Watauga County Board of Commissioners to extend this radius to two miles.\u201d See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(a) (2015) (requiring approval from the county to extend jurisdiction beyond the one-mile perimeter). When the County denied the Town\u2019s request to exercise jurisdiction beyond the one-mile extraterritorial area, the Town adopted Ordinance 82-11 to exercise \u201c[e]xtraterritorial zoning jurisdiction pursuant to [N.C.G.S. \u00a7] 160A-360\u201d for five specified areas located within the permitted one-mile perimeter outside the Town limits. Boone, N.C., Ordinance 82-11 (Aug. 26,1982).\nIn 2014 the General Assembly withdrew extraterritorial jurisdiction from the Town and returned governance of the areas to the County. Act of June 26, 2014, ch. 33, sec. 1, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 2014) 139, 140 (the Boone Act) (\u201cNotwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Boone shall not exercise any powers of extraterritorial jurisdiction as provided in Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes.\u201d). The Boone Act effectively reorganized the specified local governmental jurisdictions within Watauga County by confining the Town\u2019s jurisdictional reach to its corporate limits and restoring governance of the extraterritorial area to the County. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-360(a)-(b) (2015).\nThe Town filed its complaint, challenging the Boone Act as a facially unconstitutional local act prohibited by Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution. The State unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the complaint and, in its answer, denied the Town\u2019s allegations regarding the applicability of Article II, Section 24. The County intervened, asserting its \u201cspecial interest\u201d in the action as a \u201cproperty owner\u201d and \u201cthe duly elected governing body for the citizens and residents residing within the former extraterritorial jurisdiction.\u201d\nA three-judge panel heard oral arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the Town, concluding \u201cthat the revocation of the Town of Boone\u2019s power of extraterritorial jurisdiction by [the Boone Act] is unconstitutional pursuant to the prohibition on local acts contained in Article II, Section 24\u201d and enjoining its implementation. The State and the County appealed that decision under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(al).\nThe State and the County argue that, under Article VII, Section 1 of the constitution, the legislature delegates to municipalities the authority to govern a particular territoiy and retains plenary power to modify the governance of that geographic territory. To hold otherwise would allow Article II, Section 24 to impermissibly restrict the General Assembly\u2019s broad authority over municipalities as acknowledged by Article VII, Section 1. The Town responds that the Boone Act is a prohibited local act because it removes the authority of the Town to enforce its ordinances, some of which may \u201c[r]elat[e] to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances,\u201d N.C. Const. art. II, \u00a7 24(1)(a), or \u201c[r]egulat[e] labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing,\u201d id. art. II, \u00a7 24(1)(j), and that the Act otherwise partially repeals N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360, a general law, see id. art II, \u00a724(2).\nThe analytical framework for reviewing a facial constitutional challenge is well-established. Our \u201cState Constitution is in no matter a grant of power,\u201d Lassiter v. Northampton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d 853, 861 (1958), affd. 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1072 (1959), and as such, \u201c[a]ll power which is not limited by the Constitution inheres in the people, and an act of a State legislature is legal when the Constitution contains no prohibition against it,\u201d id. at 112, 102 S.E.2d at 861 (citation omitted). See also Slate ex rel. Ewart v. Jones, 116 N.C. 570, 570, 21 S.E. 787, 787 (1895) (\u201c[P]ower resides with the people and is exercised by their representatives in the General Assembly.\u201d). \u201cWe seldom uphold facial challenges because it is the role of the legislature, rather than this Court, to balance disparate interests and find a workable compromise among them.\u201d Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 363 N.C. 500, 502, 681 S.E.2d 278, 280 (2009) (citation omitted). An act of the General Assembly will be declared unconstitutional only when \u201cit [is] plainly and clearly the case,\u201d State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 449, 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989) (quoting Glenn v. Bd. of Educ., 210 N.C. 525, 529-30, 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936)), and its unconstitutionality must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, Baker v. Martin, 330 N.C. 331, 334-35, 410 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1991) (citations omitted).\nThough not expressly stated in our first constitution, the General Assembly has long enjoyed plenary power to create political subdivisions of local government, establish their jurisdictional boundaries, and invest them with certain powers, see Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, _N.C. _, _, 789 S.E.2d 454, 457 (2016), which \u201cmay be enlarged, abridged or modified at the will of the legislature,\u201d id. at _, 789 S.E.2d at 457 (quoting White v. Comm\u2019rs of Chowan Cty., 90 N.C. 437, 438 (1884)). Our Constitution of 1868 affirmed \u201cthe duty of the Legislature to provide for the organization of cities, towns, and incorporated villages.\u201d N.C. Const, of 1868, art. VIII, \u00a7 4. By 1876, following a brief suspension of \u201cprovisions relating to municipaljities]\u201d during Reconstruction, see id., art. VII, \u00a7 12, the constitution reaffirmed that \u201c[tjhe General Assembly shall have full power by statute to modify, change, or abrogate any and all of the provisions\u201d pertaining to municipalities, id., Amends, of 1875, art. VII, \u00a7 14. See Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of North Carolina 162-63 (Raleigh, Josiah Turner 1875) (dismissing concerns that the 1875 amendment to Article VII would provide \u201cunlimited control of the Legislature\u201d over \u201cthe municipal government of cities, towns, &c.\u201d).\nLocal political subdivisions are \u201cmere instrumentalities of the State for the more convenient administration of local government,\u201d Holmes v. City of Fayetteville, 197 N.C. 740, 746, 150 S.E. 624, 627 (1929), appeal dismissed per curiam, 281 U.S. 700, 50 S. Ct. 353, 74 L. Ed. 1126 (1930), whose territory and functions rest \u201cin the absolute discretion of the state,\u201d State ex rel. Dyer v. City of Leaksville, 275 N.C. 41, 50, 165 S.E.2d 201, 207 (1969) (quoting Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S. Ct. 40,46, 52 L. Ed. 151, 159 (1907)); accord Greensboro-High Point Airport Auth. v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 1, 9-10, 36 S.E.2d 803, 809 (1946). Under its plenary power, the General Assembly may create, organize, and abolish these local governmental units, arranging and rearranging local government to best meet the specific local needs of the people. See People ex rel. VanBokkelen v. Canaday, 73 N.C. 198, 222 (1875) (Political subdivisions \u201care parts and parcels of the State, organized for the convenience of local self-government.\u201d); accord White, 90 N.C. at 438. Each locality presents different challenges and needs for the arrangement of local governmental units. The General Assembly is the only branch of government equipped to organize local government and, through oversight, craft responses to the changing needs of local communities.\nAs acknowledged by the case law, this broad power of the General Assembly has remained unchanged throughout our history and is recognized in Article VII, Section 1 of our current constitution, adopted in 1971:\nThe General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable.\nN.C. Const. art. VII, \u00a7 1. As such, Article VII, Section 1 \u201cis not a delegation of power to the General Assembly\u201d but \u201ca general description\u201d and \u201cmerely a recognition\u201d of \u201cthe General Assembly\u2019s power to provide for the organization and powers of local government,\u201d Report of the North Carolina State Constitution Study Commission 85 (1968) [hereinafter 1968 Constitution Commission Report], as affirmed in the 1875 amendment, which \u201cgave the General Assembly full power to revise or abolish the form and powers of county and township governments,\u201d id. at 143.\nThe text of the first clause of Article VII, Section 1, \u201c[t]he General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries\u201d of local governmental entities, mandates the statutory creation, structuring, restructuring, and defining of local governmental subdivisions and their jurisdictional boundaries. We look to the plain meaning of the phrase to ascertain its intent. State v. Webb, 358 N.C. 92, 97, 591 S.E.2d 505, 510-11 (2004) (The constitution is construed for its plain meaning.); see also Dunn v. Pac. Emp\u2019rs Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 129, 134, 418 S.E.2d 645, 648 (1992) (Ordinary rules of grammar apply.). Each word informs a proper understanding of the-whole. \u201cOrganization\u201d means something \u201cput together into an orderly, functional, [and] structured whole.\u201d Organize, The American Heritage Dictionary 926 (new coll. ed. 1979). \u201cGovernment\u201d is defined as \u201c[t]he act or process of governing; especially, the administration of public policy in a political unit; political jurisdiction.\u201d Government, id. at 570. The \u201cfixing of boundaries\u201d means establishing borders or limits. See Fix and Boundary, id. at 497, 156. Thus, the plain meaning of the phrase \u201corganization and government and fixing of boundaries\u201d includes the designation and realignment of the political jurisdictions of local governmental units.\nThe General Assembly alone has the oversight responsibility and authority to define, limit, and expand the otherwise competing jurisdictions of local political subdivisions. See Hailey v. City of Winston-Salem, 196 N.C. 17, 22-23, 144 S.E. 377, 380 (1928) (\u201cWhen a new governmental agency is established by the Legislature, such as a municipal corporation, it takes control of all the affairs over which it is given authority, to the exclusion of other governmental agencies.\u201d). Setting the jurisdictional boundaries of political subdivisions is left to legislative discretion. Since the needs of each community differ, this Court has repeatedly acknowledged the practical reality that the General Assembly may exercise that discretion by local act.\nThe second clause of Article VII, Section 1 concerns the authority of the General Assembly to confer specific \u201cpowers and duties\u201d on local governmental units. Unlike the first clause in Article VII, Section 1, the second clause includes an express limitation; namely, it prohibits any legislative delegation of \u201cpowers and duties\u201d to local governmental units that is \u201cotherwise prohibited by this Constitution.\u201d Only under the second clause, then, is the General Assembly\u2019s authority over local governments expressly subject to limitations imposed by other constitutional provisions, including the constraints on local acts in Article II, Section 24 first adopted in 1917. For example, under the Article II, Section 24 prohibition on certain local acts, the General Assembly cannot grant to one county the power to enact local employment legislation, see Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C., 357 N.C. 170, 191, 581 S.E.2d 415, 430 (2003), or remove a city\u2019s power to enforce certain ordinances regarding specific properties within its municipal limits, see City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven Cty. Bd. of Educ., 338 N.C. 430, 442, 450 S.E.2d 735, 742 (1994).\nActing under its plenary authority, the General Assembly creates municipalities. Historically, the municipality\u2019s governmental authority ended at its corporate limits. The General Assembly first granted municipalities the authority to govern extraterritorially by amending municipal charters. Even after the adoption of the restrictions on local acts, the legislature continued to delegate to select cities on an individual basis the authority to enforce more comprehensive zoning regulations within their one-mile perimeters. Over time extraterritorial jurisdiction has become more common and the governmental authority expanded.\nAt its essence, jurisdiction is \u201c[a] government\u2019s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory\u201d or the \u201cgeographic area within which political... authority may be exercised.\u201d Jurisdiction, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Extraterritorial jurisdiction extends the Town\u2019s jurisdictional boundary, allowing the Town to impose certain ordinances\u2014already applicable within its corporate limits\u2014one mile into County territory without the County\u2019s approval, thus superseding any County regulations on those same subjects. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360 (2015); see also Trey Allen, Univ. of N.C. Sch. of Gov\u2019t, General Ordinance Authority, in County and Municipal Government in North Carolina 77, 84 (Frayda S. Bluestein ed., 2d ed. 2014) (\u201cA city may enforce zoning and other development ordinances inside its corporate limits and within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).... When a city chooses to enforce development ordinances in its ETJ, the county\u2019s development ordinances no longer apply there ....\u201d). Extraterritorial jurisdiction remains extraordinary because it broadens a municipality\u2019s jurisdictional reach beyond its corporate limits. This extension of extraterritorial jurisdictional authority deprives the residents of the extraterritorial area of meaningful representation and the right to vote for local government representatives who shape policies affecting their property interests. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S. Ct. 526, 535, 11 L. Ed. 2d 481, 492 (1964) (\u201cNo right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.\u201d).\nThe pivotal question before this Court is whether the Boone Act, which withdraws the Town\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction, is an exercise of the General Assembly\u2019s plenary authority to \u201cprovide for the organization and government and fixing of boundaries\u201d of local government under the first clause of Article VII, Section 1. If so, our analysis ends, and there is no need to address the application of the second clause of Article VII, Section 1 and any restrictions imposed by Article II, Section 24.\nExtraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricably tied to a municipality\u2019s authority to enforce its zoning and development ordinances within certain geographic boundaries. By retracting the Town\u2019s jurisdictional reach to its corporate limits, the Boone Act restores the local government boundaries within Watauga County as originally fixed. This local jurisdictional reorganization is precisely the type of \u201corganization and government and fixing of boundaries\u201d contemplated by the first clause of Article VII, Section 1 and historically approved by this Court. The Boone Act withdraws from the Town its extraterritorial jurisdiction and its governing authority to enforce certain ordinances within the one-mile perimeter and returns governance- of that territory to the County and its residents. The General Assembly is the only body politic uniquely qualified to oversee local government and set the jurisdictional lines that divide the Town and the County.\nBecause the state constitution authorizes the General Assembly to reduce the Town\u2019s jurisdictional reach, the removal of extraterritorial jurisdiction falls squarely within the legislature\u2019s general power as described in the first clause of Article VH, Section 1. For the reasons stated above, the decision of the three-judge panel finding the Act unconstitutional is reversed.\nREVERSED.\n. Even when a municipality wishes to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in an area within one mile of its corporate limits, county approval is required if the county is already enforcing zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and the State Building Code in that area. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(e) (2015).\n. A municipality that wishes to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction must specify by ordinance the areas to be included, defining the boundaries \u201cto the extent feasible, in terms of geographical features identifiable on the ground.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(b) (2015). These boundaries must \u201cat all times be drawn on a map, set forth in a written description, or shown by a combination of these techniques.\u201d Id. A copy of this delineation must be filed with the Register of Deeds and, as is true of the delineation of the municipality\u2019s corporate boundaries, maintained in the office of the municipality\u2019s clerk. Id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-22 (2015), 360(b).\nTo establish its extraterritorial boundary, the Town adopted Ordinance 83-2, describing the extraterritorial area by metes and bounds and topographical features, Boone, N.C. Ordinance 83-2, \u00a7 1 (Mar. 31, 1983), and amended the zoning map to include the extraterritorial area, id. \u00a7 4. The Town later expanded its reach of extraterritorial jurisdiction into other specified areas located within the one-mile perimeter. E.g., id. 83-5 (Apr. 7, 1983); id. 87-12 (Dec. 22, 1987); id. 92-03 (Sept. 3, 1992); id. 98-04 (Nov. 19, 1998); id. 99-02 (May 27, 1999). With each additional area, the Town amended its zoning map to reflect and describe the new boundaries. E.g., id. 83-2, \u00a7 4; id. 83-5; id. 87-12, \u00a7 4; id. 92-03, \u00a7 4; id. 98-04, \u00a7 4; id. 99-02, \u00a7 4. County residents living within the added territory were then notified that the political body governing zoning and development had changed. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(al) (2015).\n. The State contends that plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, that \u201c[p]laintiff lacks standing, as well as the capacity to sue, for the withdrawal of its extraterritorial jurisdictional powers,\u201d that reallocation of authority over planning and development within the extraterritorial jurisdiction \u201cconstitutes a legitimate exercise of legislative authority over [the legislature\u2019s] political subdivisions\u201d and a non-justiciable ... political question! ] within the purview of the legislative branch of government,\u201d and that plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under the state constitution. Because we resolve this case based on the General Assembly\u2019s plenary power acknowledged in the first clause of Article VII, Section 1, we do not address the other arguments.\n. Residents of extraterritorial jurisdiction areas are not allowed to vote in local government municipal elections; they remain county residents for voting purposes. See Ordinance 82-11; N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-360(al), -362 (2015).\n. Significantly, the text of Article VII, Section 1, recognizing the General Assembly\u2019s historic duty to provide for local government, was adopted against the backdrop of Article II, Section 24 and the various court decisions describing its application. See 1968 Constitution Commission Report 85; see also N.C. State Bar v. DuMont, 304 N.C. 627, 635, 286 S.E.2d 89, 94 (1982) (relying on the 1968 Constitution Commission Report to \u201cascertain[ ] the intent of the framers and adopters, [and] the object and purpose of the revision\u201d). Following well-established principles of construction, one amendment cannot be read to eliminate the other, and the one more recent in time is given its full application. In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 159, 250 S.E.2d 890, 919 (1978) (considering constitutional amendments \u201cin pari materia with the other sections of our Constitution which it was intended to supplement\u201d (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 99 S. Ct. 2859, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979); Perry v. Standi, 237 N.C. 442, 444, 75 S.E.2d 512, 514 (1953) (\u201cConstitutional provisions should be construed in consonance with the objects and purposes in contemplation at the time of their adoption.\u201d (emphasis added)).\n. Instances of creating, organizing, and reorganizing political subdivisions have met this Court\u2019s approval, both before and after the 1917 amendments that created the predecessor to Article II, Section 24. See, e.g., Bethania Town Lot Comm. v. City of Winston-Salem, 348 N.C. 664, 668, 502 S.E.2d 360, 362 (1998) (\u201cThe General Assembly may, by special or local act, create municipalities and change the boundaries of municipalities.\u201d (citations omitted)); Lilly v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 489, 490-91, 494-95 (1883)-(affirming the legislature\u2019s creation and subsequent repeal of the charter of the Town of Fayetteville); Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. (11 Ired.) 558, 560, 563-64 (1850) (upholding the legislature\u2019s \u201cpower to create and abolish\u201d Polk County); see also In re Ordinance of Annexation No. 1977-4, 296 N.C. 1, 16-17, 249 S.E.2d 698, 707 (1978) (Municipalities have no inherent constitutional right to their boundaries and derive authority only from the powers delegated by the legislature, (citations omitted)).\n. See Piedmont Ford Truck Sale, Inc. v. City of Greensboro, 324 N.C. 499, 502, 380 S.E.2d 107,109 (1989) (\u201cThe extension of boundaries of cities has been held to be apolitical decision \u2014\u201d (citations omitted)); see also Texfi Indus., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 44 N.C. App. 268, 273, 261 S.E.2d 21,25 (1979) (recognizing the General Assembly\u2019s authority to create, destroy, or change the boundaries of any political subdivision), ajf\u2019d, 301 N.C. 1, 269 S.E.2d 142 (1980); Jones v. Jeanette, 34 N.C. App. 526, 532, 239 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1977) (stating that setting boundaries under Article VII, Section 1 is a \u201cpermissible legislative function\u201d \u201cleft to legislative discretion\u201d (citing, inter alia, Hunter, 207 U.S. at 178-79, 28 S. Ct. at 46, 52 L. Ed. at 159)).\n. See Bethania Town Lot Comm., 348 N.C. at 668, 502 S.E.2d at 362; Plemmer v. Matthewson, 281 N.C. 722, 725, 190 S.E.2d 204, 206-07 (1972) (The legislature may create a municipality by special act and may provide procedures for annexation by special act.); Town of Highlands v. City of Hickory, 202 N.C. 167, 168, 162 S.E. 471, 471 (1932) (upholding a local act that extended the municipal limits of one town and repealed statutes under which adjacent towns were organized); Holmes, 197 N.C. at 748, 150 S.E. at 628 (The legislature may extend by special act extraterritorial jurisdiction and the authority of a municipality to provide services outside its corporate limits.); State v. Rice, 158 N.C. 635, 636, 74 S.E. 582, 582 (1912) (recognizing the legislature\u2019s authority to allow the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction outside municipal limits by local act); Lutterloh v. City of Fayetteville, 149 N.C. 65, 69, 62 S.E. 758, 760 (1908) (recognizing validity of extension of corporate boundaries through annexation by local act); see also In re City of Durham Annexation Ordinance, 69 N.C. App. 77, 84, 316 S.E.2d 649, 654 (\u201cArticle VII, Section 1 is not a power of the General Assembly which must be carried out or enacted by general laws as defined in Article XIV, Section 3.\u201d), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 312 N.C. 493, 322 S.E.2d 553 (1984).\n. This approach of conducting an Article II, Section 24 analysis only when the challenged statute specifies a specific \u201cpower\u201d or \u201cduty\u201d is consistent with our prior decisions. la. Piedmont Ford Truck Sale, Inc. v. City of Greensboro, the plaintiffs challenged a local act annexing certain land to the City of Greensboro. 324 N.C. 499, 501, 380 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1989). While the annexation clearly arose under the authority to \u201cfix the boundaries of cities\u201d acknowledged in Article VII, Section 1, id. at 503, 380 S.E.2d at 110, because the act also contained a specific \u201cprovision regarding solid waste collection,\u201d the plaintiffs argued the statute violated Article H, Section 24, id. at 504, 380 S.E.2d at 110. Because the statute specified a particular \u201cpower,\u201d this Court conducted an analysis under Article II. Id. at 504-06, 380 S.E.2d at 110-11. When viewed as a whole, the explicit grant of power was a \u201csmall part\u201d of the legislation, id. at 506, 380 S.E.2d at 111, and this Court concluded that \u201c[t]he provision... regarding solid waste collection\u201d did not violate Article n, Section 24, id. at 506, 380 S.E.2d at 111. See also, e.g., Lamb v. Bd. of Educ., 235 N.C. 377, 379-80, 70 S.E.2d 201, 203 (1952) (concluding that an act expressly restricting certain express powers of the Randolph County Board of Education violated the Article II limitations on local acts); Idol v. Street, 233 N.C. 730, 733, 65 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1951) (concluding that an act that \u201cconferred] power upon the Board of Aldermen of the City of Winston-Salem and the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County\u201d to, inter alia, \u201cname a joint city-county board of health,\u201d which varied from general law, \u201c[wa]s a local act relating to health\u201d in violation of the Article II limitations on local acts); Bd. of Health v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 220 N.C. 140, 143-44, 16 S.E.2d 677, 678-79 (1941) (concluding that an act removing from the Nash County Board of Health the power to appoint a county health officer was a local act relating to health in violation of the Article H limitations on local acts).\n. See Rice, 168 N.C. at 636, 640, 74 S.E. at 582, 684 (upholding a City of Greensboro ordinance regulating hog farming within one-fourth mile of the corporate limits, adopted pursuant to the 1911 statutory delegation of authority by charter amendment).\n. E.g., Act of Apr. 23, 1949, ch. 1192, sec. 1, 1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 1521, 1521 (authorizing Town of Tarboro to exercise zoning powers within one mile beyond the Town\u2019s corporate limits); Act of Mar. 31, 1949, ch. 700, sec. 3, 1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 732, 733 (same for City of Gastonia); Act of Mar. 28, 1949, ch. 629, secs. 1, 2, 1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 640, 640-41 (same for Town of Chapel Hill); Act of Mar. 26, 1949, ch. 540, secs. 1, 4, 1949 N.C. Sess. Laws 541, 541-42, 543 (same for City of Raleigh); see also Report of the Municipal Government Study Commission 18 (1958) [hereinafter Municipal Report] (\u201cA total of 19 cities have, by special act, been given authority to zone for one mile or more beyond their limits.\u201d).\n. Whether enforcing its ordinances inside its municipal limits or extraterritorially, a town receives the authority to govern territory from the legislature. See Holmes, 197 N.C. at 744, 150 S.E. at 626 (\u201cThe general rule is that a municipal corporation has no extraterritorial powers .. . .\u201d); Town of Lake Waccamaw v. Savage, 86 N.C. App. 211, 213, 356 S.E.2d 810, 811 (recognizing that the General Assembly may by local act permit a town to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction), disc. rev. denied, 320 N.C. 797, 361 S.E.2d 89 (1987).\n. County citizens residing within the affected territory cannot vote for Town officials. Ordinance 82-11; see N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-360(al), 362. While County residents subject to the Town\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction are represented on the Town\u2019s planning board and board of adjustment, Ordinance 82-11, these extraterritorial-jurisdiction appointees may only vote on matters involving the extraterritorial area, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-360(al), 362; see also Municipal Report 18 (\u201c [Governmental action affecting the use of property should originate in a governing board elected by persons subject to such action . . . [and] residents of the area affected should be given a voice... through the naming of outside residents to local planning boards and boards of adjustment.\u201d).", "type": "majority", "author": "NEWBY, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice ERVIN\nconcurring in the result.\nAlthough I concur in the Court\u2019s determination that the Boone Act is not facially unconstitutional, I am unable to agree with the Court\u2019s determination to uphold the Boone Act pursuant to the first portion of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution, which recognizes the General Assembly\u2019s authority to provide for the \u201corganization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions\u201d on the theory that the Boone Act effectuates a \u201creorganization\u201d of the authority granted to Boone and Watauga County. N.C. Const, art. VII, \u00a7 1. Instead, I believe that a determination of the constitutionality of the Boone Act hinges upon the second part of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1, which recognizes the General Assembly\u2019s authority to \u201cgive such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as [the General Assembly] may deem advisable\u201d so long as any legislation that is enacted pursuant to this provision is not \u201cotherwise prohibited by [the North Carolina] Constitution.\u201d Id. For the reasons set forth below, while I believe that the General Assembly\u2019s decision to alter the Town\u2019s regulatory authority is subject to constitutional limitations, such as those contained in Article II, Section 24, I also believe that the Boone Act is not impermissibly connected to the subjects about which the General Assembly lacks the authority to enact local legislation. Moreover, even if the Boone Act does implicate \u201cthe organization and government and the fixing of boundaries\u201d provision, that determination does not obviate the necessity for the Court to consider \u201cany restrictions imposed by Article II, Section 24\u201d given our decision in Piedmont Ford Truck Sale, Inc. v. City of Greensboro, 324 N.C. 499, 380 S.E.2d 111 (1989). As a result, while I concur in the result reached by the Court, I am unable to join its decision.\nAlthough the Court believes that its decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Boone Act obviates the need to address the State\u2019s sovereign immunity and standing arguments, I do not find that assertion convincing. Since both sovereign immunity and standing are threshold issues, they must be addressed in order for the Court to reach the merits of the constitutional claims that have been advanced for our consideration. For that reason, I will begin by addressing the sovereign immunity and standing arguments that the State has advanced in opposition to the Town\u2019s claims.\nIn seeking relief from the order of the three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County, before this Court, the State argues that the panel erred by granting summary judgment in the Town\u2019s favor because (1) the Town\u2019s challenge to the Boone Act is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) the Town lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Boone Act; and (3) the Town\u2019s challenge to the Boone Act in reliance upon Article II, Section 24 fails given that the Boone Act falls squarely within the General Assembly\u2019s authority regarding the \u201cfixing of boundaries\u201d pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution. With respect to the sovereign immunity issue, the State contends that the Town failed to specifically allege a waiver of sovereign immunity in its complaint; that nothing in the relevant statutory provisions authorizes a municipality to file suit against the State; and that the Town does not have a valid constitutional claim sufficient to support a direct action against the State. In response, the Town asserts that it was not required to do anything other than allege a reasonable basis for determining that its claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. Moreover, the State\u2019s argument directed to the substance of the Town\u2019s claim does not serve the purpose for which sovereign immunity exists, which is to obviate the necessity for the State to defend itself in litigation in the absence of consent. The lack of any valid basis for the State\u2019s sovereign immunity argument is bolstered by the substantial number of decisions stemming from challenges to legislation asserted in reliance upon Article II, Section 24, none of which has suggested that such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. I do not find the State\u2019s sovereign immunity argument to be persuasive.\n\u201cSovereign immunity stands for the proposition that. . . \u2018the State cannot be sued except with its consent or upon its waiver of immunity.\u2019 \u201d Dawes v. Nash County, 357 N.C. 442, 445, 584 S.E.2d 760, 762 (2003) (quoting Paul L. Whitfield, P.A. v. Gilchrist, 348 N.C. 39, 42, 497 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1998), and citing Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 534, 299 S.E.2d 618, 625 (1983)). \u201c[Sovereign immunity ... \u2018is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability....\u201d\u2019 Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 338, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 425 (1985)). \u201c[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity... is a common law theory or defense established by this Court,\u201d so that, \u201cwhen there is a clash between... constitutional rights and sovereign immunity, the constitutional rights must prevail.\u201d Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 786, 413 S.E.2d 276, 292, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985, 121 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1992).\nThe State\u2019s argument in reliance upon the Town\u2019s failure to specifically plead a waiver of sovereign immunity relies exclusively upon Vest v. Easley, in which the Court of Appeals noted that \u201c[i]t is well-established law that with no allegation of waiver [of sovereign immunity] in a plaintiff\u2019s complaint, the plaintiff is absolutely barred from suing the state and its public officials in their official capacities in an action for negligence.\u201d 145 N.C. App. 70, 74, 549 S.E.2d 568, 573 (2001) (citations omitted). Instead of asserting a negligence-based claim for monetary damages such as the claim at issue in Vest, however, the Town has sought a declaration concerning the constitutionality of the Boone Act. \u201cA declaratory judgment may be used to determine the construction and validity of a statute,\u201d Town of Emerald Isle v. State, 320 N.C. 640, 646, 360 S.E.2d 756, 760 (1987) (citing City of Raleigh v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 275 N.C. 454, 168 S.E.2d 389 (1969)), with \u201ca municipality [being entitled to] have its rights and obligations determined in a declaratory judgment action,\u201d id. at 646, 360 S.E.2d at 760 (citing Bd. of Managers v. City of Wilmington, 237 N.C. 179, 74 S.E.2d 749 (1953)). In light of that fact, this Court has regularly entertained declaratory judgment actions against the State and its political subdivisions involving challenges to the constitutionality of legislation as violative of Article II, Section 24. E.g., id. at 645-52,360 S.E.2d at 759-63; Bd. of Managers, 237 N.C. at 186-90, 74 S.E.2d at 754-57. On the other hand, the State has failed to identify a single decision of this Court holding that the Town was required to plead a waiver of sovereign immunity as a prerequisite for challenging the constitutionality of the Boone Act under Article II, Section 24 or that the doctrine of sovereign immunity presents any obstacle to our consideration of the merits of the Town\u2019s constitutional challenge.\nAs previously noted, the State asserts that this Court\u2019s decisions under Article II, Section 24 have no bearing upon the sovereign immunity claim that it has advanced in this case because the constitutionality of the Boone Act is controlled by the boundary fixing provision of Article VII, Section 1, rather than Article II, Section 24. However, even when this Court has rejected constitutional claims predicated upon Article II, Section 24, those decisions rest upon substantive considerations rather than upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Town of Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. at 648-52, 360 S.E.2d at 761-63; Cheape v. Town of Chapel Hill, 320 N.C. 549, 557-60, 359 S.E.2d 792, 797-99 (1987), with such results obtaining even in cases involving challenges to legislation related to annexation and the creation or alteration of municipal boundaries, see, e.g., Piedmont Ford Truck Sale, 324 N.C. at 505, 380 S.E.2d at 111 (holding that a local act obligating the City of Greensboro to provide solid waste collection in newly annexed areas did not relate to health and sanitation for purposes of Article II, Section 24(1)(a), because it had the \u201ceffect\u201d of making a general law of statewide application applicable to an annexation being effectuated by means of a local act and because the challenged legislation did not \u201csubject the annexed area to a different treatment than\u201d would have been the case if Greensboro \u201chad annexed the area under the general annexation law\u201d). As a result, our precedent indicates that the mere fact that a constitutional challenge to legislation advanced in reliance upon Article II, Section 24 proves unsuc- . cessful does not establish that the underlying claim should have been dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.\nAside from the fact that the Town was not required to allege or prove that a traditional cause of action exists under Article II, Section 24 in order to seek and obtain a declaration concerning the constitutionality of the Boone Act, see Town of Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. at 646, 360 S.E.2d at 760 (stating that a plaintiff seeking a judicial declaration \u201cis not required to allege or prove that a traditional \u2018cause of action\u2019 exists against [a] defendant\u201d (citing Sharpe v. Park Newspapers of Lumberton, Inc., 317 N.C. 579, 588, 347 S.E.2d 25, 31-32 (1986))), this Court has \u201cclearly establish[ed] the principle that sovereign immunity [cannot] operate to bar direct constitutional claims,\u201d particularly if ' the plaintiff is left with \u201cno adequate remedy at state law,\u201d Craig, 363 N.C. at 340, 678 S.E.2d at 356 (citing Corum, 330 N.C. at 782-86, 413 S.E.2d at 289-92). Although this Court\u2019s decisions in Corum, 330 N.C. at 782-86, 413 S.E.2d at 289-92, and Craig, 363 N.C. at 338-42, 678 S.E.2d at 354-57, specifically mention the constitutional protections contained in the Declaration of Rights, no decision of this Court limits the applicability of the principle enunciated in those cases to the constitutional principles enunciated in Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. On the contrary, this Court held in Craig that the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a decision on the merits with respect to a claim advanced in reliance upon Article IX, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution, which provides that \u201cschools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,\u201d in addition to the claims that he asserted pursuant to Article I, Sections 15 and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Craig, 363 N.C. at 335, 342, 678 S.E.2d at 352, 357. The prohibition against local legislation addressing certain subjects contained in Article II, Section 24 is an integral part of our State\u2019s fundamental law and should not be treated as of lesser importance. As a result, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar the Town from asserting a claim against the State pursuant to Article II, Section 24.\nIn support of its contention that the Town lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Boone Act, the State places principal reliance upon Wood v. City of Fayetteville, 43 N.C. App. 410, 259 S.E.2d 581 (1979), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 299 N.C. 125, 261 S.E.2d 926-27 (1980), in which the Court of Appeals held that the City of Fayetteville lacked standing to challenge certain limitations that the General Assembly had imposed upon Fayetteville\u2019s annexation authority. According to the State, Wood and our decision in In re Martin, 286 N.C. 66, 209 S.E.2d 766 (1974), establish that a municipality, as a creature of the State, is only entitled to exercise those powers granted to it by the General Assembly and lacks the right to challenge the constitutionality of legislation enacted by the body that created it. Moreover, given that the ability of a municipality to exercise certain powers outside its corporate limits stems from a discretionary decision made by the General Assembly rather than from any vested right possessed by the municipality, any decision by the General Assembly to eliminate that municipality\u2019s authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot result in any injury to that municipality sufficient to give it standing to bring suit against the State. Finally, the State contends that there is no statutory support for the proposition that the Town has the authority to bring suit against the State on any basis.\nAfter acknowledging that this Court has allowed municipalities to assert claims against it in the past, the State claims that these cases are distinguishable. For example, the State argues that, since this case is governed by the boundary fixing provision of Article VII, Section 1 rather than the limitations upon the enactment of local legislation contained in Article II, Section 24, it is clearly distinguishable from the cases in which municipalities have been allowed to challenge the constitutionality of legislation, such as Town of Spruce Pine v. Avery County, 346 N.C. 787, 488 S.E.2d 144 (1997), and Town of Emerald Isle, each of which involved the imposition of a new obligation on a local government. Similarly, this case is deemed to be distinguishable from City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Board of Education, 328 N.C. 557, 402 S.E.2d 623 (1991) (New Bern T), given that New Bern I did not stem from an action brought by a municipality against the State and given that the challenged legislation involved the removal of the city\u2019s authority to enforce the State Building Code within, rather than outside, its own municipal boundaries, coupled with a grant of authority to the county to enforce the building code within the municipal boundary contained in a local, rather than a general, law, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-320 (2015); id. \u00a7 160A-360(d) (2015). Finally, the State argues that, since there is no earlier decision of this Court arising from a challenge to the withdrawal of a municipality\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction, nothing forecloses the State\u2019s ability to challenge the Town\u2019s standing to prosecute the present litigation.\nIn response, the Town argues that Wood and In re Martin do not establish a standing rule of the breadth for which the State contends. Moreover, the Town contends that a series of decisions after In re Martin, including Town of Emerald Isle, New Bern I, and Town of Spruce Pine, fatally undermine the State\u2019s position. In the Town\u2019s view, these more recent decisions, especially New Bern I, demonstrate that a municipality has standing to challenge the constitutionality of legislation depriving it of the ability to exercise regulatory authority, that the General Assembly\u2019s authority to regulate municipal corporations is not without limit, and that allowing municipalities to challenge the constitutionality of legislation pursuant to Article II, Section 24 is of critical importance given that \u201cthey are the best positioned\u2014indeed, they are often the only parties positioned\u2014to do so.\u201d Finally, the Town contends that the Boone Act is primarily concerned with powers rather than with boundaries and that the Court has rejected similar boundary-related arguments in the past, as is evidenced by our decision to invalidate the legislation at issue in City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Board of Education, 338 N.C. 430, 450 S.E.2d 735 (1994) (New Bern II).\nAs this Court has previously stated, \u201c[t]he \u2018gist of the question of standing\u2019 is whether the party seeking relief has \u2018alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation[ ] of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.\u2019 \u201d Stanley v. Dep\u2019t of Conservation & Dev., 284 N.C. 15, 28, 199 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1973) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947, 961 (1968) (citation omitted)). According to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-254, \u201c[a]ny person... whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-254 (2015), in- order \u201cto settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity, with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations,\u201d Walker v. Phelps, 202 N.C. 344, 349, 162 S.E. 727, 729 (1932).\n\u201cAn action may not be maintained under the Declaratory Judgment Act... unless the action involves a present actual controversy between the parties.\u201d Town of Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. at 645-46, 360 S.E.2d at 760 (citing City of Greensboro v. Wall, 247 N.C. 516, 519, 101 S.E.2d 413, 416 (1958)); see New Bern I, 328 N.C. at 559, 402 S.E.2d at 624-25 (stating that, \u201cin order to invoke the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act[,] there must be a justiciable controversy between the parties\u201d (citations omitted)). \u201cAlthough it is not necessary that one party have an actual right of action against another to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of an actual controversy, it is necessary that litigation appear unavoidable.\u201d Gaston Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Harrison, 311 N.C. 230, 234, 316 S.E.2d 59, 61 (1984) (citation omitted). Litigation is unavoidable for declaratory judgment purposes in instances in which a \u201c[cjounty contends it has the right to enforce certain laws,\u201d and a \u201c[c]ity says the [cjounty does not have the right.\u201d New Bern I, 328 N.C at 561, 402 S.E.2d at 626. Thus, a municipality\u2019s challenge to the constitutionality of legislation affecting its legal position involves an actual or justiciable controversy cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act. See, e.g., N.C. Dep\u2019t ofCorr. v. N.C. Med. Bd., 363 N.C. 189, 198-99, 675 S.E.2d 641, 647-48 (2009) (concluding that a justiciable controversy ' existed between two governmental entities and sufficed to confer standing to seek and obtain a declaration concerning the nature and extent of their disputed powers and duties); see also Town of Spruce Pine, 346 N.C. at 790, 488 S.E.2d at 146 (concluding that Avery County had standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act in light of this Court\u2019s decisions in Afew; Bern I and Town of Emerald Isle); Town of Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. at 646, 360 S.E.2d at 760 (concluding that the Town had standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of legislation requiring the Town to maintain facilities providing pedestrian beach access because the action involved apresent actual controversy between the parties (citation omitted)). As a result, the Town clearly has standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of the Boone Act.\nThe State\u2019s reliance upon Wood and In re Martin for standing-related purposes is misplaced. In In re Martin, this Court held, in the context of an administrative appeal, that a county lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute granting tax exemptions as violative of the uniform taxation provisions of Article V, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution. 286 N.C. at 71, 75-76, 209 S.E.2d at 770, 773. In the aftermath of In re Martin, this Court has allowed a municipality to challenge the constitutionality of a statute affecting its rights or status in a declaratory judgment action on multiple occasions. E.g., Town of Spruce Pine, 346 N.C. at 790, 488 S.E.2d at 146; New Bern I, 328 N.C. at 558-61, 402 S.E.2d at 624-26; Town of Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. at 646, 360 S.E.2d at 760. In re Martin does not articulate a broad standing rule of the nature posited by the State. Instead, the Court\u2019s standing decision in In re Martin stemmed from the fact that, given that counties lack inherent taxing authority, they do not have a right to complain that the enabling legislation authorizing counties to tax personal property \u201cis lacking in breadth,\u201d 286 N.C. at 74, 209 S.E.2d at 772; that the county, which was seeking to avail itself of the authority to tax personal property pursuant to the same legislation that it alleged to be unconstitutional, could \u201cnot accept the benefits of the taxing power conferred upon it by the statute and at the same time reject on constitutional grounds the statutory classification of property which \u2018shall not be assessed for taxation,\u2019 \u201d id. at 75, 209 S.E.2d at 772 (citation omitted); and that the county was precluded from challenging the constitutionality of the statute in question because the \u201cuniformity in taxation\u201d requirement contained in Article V, Section 2 \u201crelates to equality in the burden on the State\u2019s taxpayers\u201d rather than the county\u2019s interest in collecting tax revenues, id. at 76, 209 S.E.2d at 773 (citation omitted). Thus, our decision in In re Martin rested on a number of factors, most of which provide no support for the State\u2019s position with respect to the standing issue.\nAlthough the Court of Appeals focused its attention in Wood on the first of the three factors mentioned in In re Martin, 43 N.C. App. at 419, 259 S.E.2d at 586 (stating that, as was the case with Mecklenburg County in In re Martin, \u201cthe City of Fayetteville ... is a creature of the legislature and an agency of the state\u201d that \u201chas no inherent power to annex\u201d and that, \u201c[i]n light of Martin, . . . the City cannot question the limitations placed by the legislature on its power to annex\u201d (internal citations omitted)), this Court is not bound by that decision. Contrary to the approach adopted in Wood, we have interpreted In re Martin as holding that a local government lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute in the event that it has accepted benefits arising from the same statute that it seeks to challenge. See, e.g., Town of Spruce Pine, 346 N.C. at 790, 488 S.E.2d at 146. Consistent with that interpretation of In re Martin, in New Bern I, 328 N.C. at 559, 402 S.E.2d at 625, this Court rejected the argument that a unit of local government lacks standing to seek a declaration concerning the constitutionality of a statute divesting it of existing regulatory authority on the theory that the local government has no inherent or \u201cvested right\u201d to exercise that authority.\nIn my opinion, the standing issue before the Court in this case is remarkably similar to the one that we resolved in favor of the municipality in New Bern I. Like the powers at issue in this case, the inspection power at issue in New Bern I and II was a component of a bundle of regulatory powers that had been granted to municipalities by the General Assembly in Article 19 of Chapter 160A. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-360(a), -411 to -439 (2015). Prior to the enactment of the legislation at issue in New Bern I and II, the city had the authority to conduct inspections pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-411 and had, in fact, performed them. New Bern II, 338 N.C. at 434, 450 S.E.2d at 738. Although this Court recognized that the General Assembly had the authority to confer building and fire and safety code enforcement responsibility upon municipal governments and that the municipality had no inherent or vested right to exercise that authority, we held that the City had the right to seek a declaration of the extent, if any, to which the challenged legislation violated Article II, Section 24 on the grounds that the city \u201chad the right to enforce the codes prior to the action by the General Assembly\u201d and that this \u201cchange in\u201d an enforcement responsibility that had \u201cpreviously belonged to\u201d the city could be challenged \u201cunder the Declaratory Judgment Act.\u201d New Bern I, 328 N.C. at 559, 402 S.E.2d at 625 (citing Bd. of Health v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 220 N.C. 140, 142-44, 16 S.E.2d 677, 678-79 (1941) (holding that legislation allowing the Nash County Board of Commissioners to veto the appointment of the county health officer by the county board of health and requiring that the appointment of the health officer be confirmed by the county commissioners was subject to constitutional challenge in a declaratory judgment action)). In addition, we rejected an argument that the city lacked standing to bring a declaratory judgment action for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of the legislation in question on the grounds that no duty was being imposed on the city by the challenged legislation, stating \u201c[tjhat is not the test,\u201d that the city\u2019s \u201cstatus was changed by the acts of the General Assembly,\u201d and that the city \u201cmay challenge this change of status by an action for a declaratory judgment.\u201d Id. at 560, 402 S.E.2d at 625. Finally, this Court concluded in New Bern I that the parties\u2019 disagreement over the county\u2019s right to enforce the laws in question had no effect on the city\u2019s ability to maintain the present litigation. Id. at 561, 402 S.E.2d at 626. Thus, the fact that both the Town and the County claim the right to regulate land use in the Town\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction and the fact that the County has taken steps to resume exercising regulatory authority in the affected area establish that the Town and the County have \u201calleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation ] of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.\u201d Stanley, 284 N.C. at 28, 199 S.E.2d at 650 (quoting Blast 392 U.S. at 99, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 961 (citation omitted)).\nThe State correctly notes that the facts at issue in New Bern I and II and the facts at issue here are different in that this case involves the removal of an entire bundle of powers, rather than a single power, from the authority that the General Assembly has delegated to the Town; that the enforcement authority at issue in this case, unlike the authority at issue in the New Bern cases, involves the exercise of regulatory authority in an area located outside of the municipality's corporate limits rather than inside those limits; that the legislation at issue in New Bern I and II, unlike the Boone Act, explicitly transferred enforcement authority from the municipality to the county; and that the Town, unlike the municipality in Afew Bern I and II, was required to and did enact ordinances defining the area in which it intended to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction as a prerequisite for exerting regulatoiy authority there. However, while these distinctions implicate facts that are relevant to a determination of the merits of the Town\u2019s challenge to the constitutionality of the Boone Act, I am unable to see how they have any bearing on the proper resolution of the standing issue in this case. Thus, for all these reasons, I believe that the State\u2019s challenge to the Town\u2019s standing to maintain the present action lacks merit.\nThe ultimate issue before us in this case is whether the constitutionality of the Boone Act should be evaluated on the basis of the General Assembly\u2019s authority to \u201cprovide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries,\u201d N.C. Const. art. VII, \u00a7 1, or the General Assembly\u2019s authority to \u201cgive such powers and duties\u201d to local governments \u201cexcept as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution.\u201d As a result of the fact that Article II, Section 24 was enacted for the purpose of placing certain limits on the authority retained by the General Assembly, including at least a portion of the authority recognized in Article VII, Section 1, I believe that a proper resolution of the issue before us requires a consideration of Article VII, Section 1, Article II, Section 24, and the decisions of this Court discussing the reach of the limitations on the legislative power to enact local legislation worked by Article II, Section 24. After conducting what I believe to be the required analysis, I am unable to escape the conclusion that the logic adopted by the Court in upholding the Boone Act unduly enlarges the scope of the first portion of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1 and unduly narrows both the second part of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1 and the reach of the limitations on the scope of the legislative power set out in Article II, Section 24 in a maimer that is not \u201cin consonance with the objects and purposes in contemplation at the time of their adoption.\u201d Perry v. Standi, 237 N.C. 442, 444, 75 S.E.2d 512, 514 (1953).\nSince the adoption of our first constitution in 1776, the General Assembly has enjoyed considerable authority over units of local government. See generally John L. Sanders, The Proposed Constitution of North Carolina: An Analysis, 23 Popular Gov\u2019t 1, 9 (Feb. 1959) (noting that \u201cNorth Carolina has a strong tradition of state legislative control and supervision of local government, both county and municipal,\u201d and that, \u201c[f]rom 1776 until 1868, the Constitution left provision for and control of local government almost entirely in the hands of the General Assembly\u201d). Although the delegates at the 1835 convention elected to propose constitutional amendments to prohibit \u201cprivate laws\u201d addressing a number of subjects, including the granting of requests for divorce, alimony, name changes, legitimation of individuals bom out of wedlock, and restoration of citizenship rights of convicted felons, N.C. Const. of 1776, Amends, of 1835, art. I, \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4, paras. 3-5, which were subsequently ratified by the voters, the delegates rejected a proposal that \u201c[t]he General Assembly shall have no power to pass any private law to effect any object, that could be effected by a general law on the same subject.\u201d Proceedings and Debates of the Convention ofNorth-Carolina [1835] 379, 382 (Raleigh, Joseph Gales & Son 1836).\nThe 1868 Constitution provided that \u201c[i]t shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide for the organization of cities, towns, and incorporated villages,\u201d N.C. Const. of 1868, art. VIII, \u00a7 4, without requiring the adoption of uniform legislation addressing that subject. Although the framers of the 1868 Constitution limited the enactment of such legislation with respect to private businesses, those limitations did not apply to municipal and public corporations. Id., art. VIII, \u00a7 1 (providing that \u201c [corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the object of the corporations cannot be attained under general laws,\u201d with \u201c[a]ll general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this Section\u201d being subject to \u201calteration] from time to time or repeal[ ]\u201d). In 1875, the General Assembly\u2019s authority over local governments was expanded, with the changes by which this policy was effectuated including the adoption of an amendment to Article VII of the Constitution of 1868 adding new language providing that \u201c[t]he General Assembly shall have full power by statute to modify, change or abrogate any and all of the provisions of this article and substitute others in their place, except sections seven, nine and thirteen.\u201d Id., Amends, of 1875, art. VII, \u00a7 14; see generally John V. Orth & Paul Martin Newby, The North Carolina State Constitution 25-26 (2d ed. 2013) (stating that \u201c[t]he principal aim\u201d of these amendments \u201cwas to restore to the General Assembly more of the power it had lost\u201d in 1868 and that \u201cthe General Assembly regained its former power over local government\u201d by means of Article VII, \u00a7 14). The 1875 amendments to the constitutional provisions governing the relationship between the General Assembly and local government were adopted despite concerns that they would \u201cabridg[e] the rights of the citizens by placing the government and organization of cities, towns, and &c., under the unlimited control of the Legislature.\u201d Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of North Carolina 162-63, 252 (Raleigh, Josiah Turner 1875).\nThe present version of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1 was recommended in the report of the North Carolina State Constitution Study Commission. Report of the North Carolina State Constitution Study Commission 33, 90 (1968). In support of this recommendation, the Commission noted that, given the version of Article VII adopted in 1875, the constitutional provisions governing the General Assembly\u2019s authority over local government, except for those relating to financial matters and providing for the office of Sheriff, were subject to modification by the General Assembly, which \u201cha[d] often exercised that power.\u201d Id. at 33. \u201cIn view of this fact,\u201d the Commission recommended eliminating the provisions contained in Article VII that prescribed the General Assembly\u2019s authority over the organization and powers of local government to the extent that they were subject to modification by statute and inserting in their stead what is now the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1, which the Commission depicted as \u201ca general description of the General Assembly\u2019s power to provide for the organization and powers of local government\u201d that, instead of constituting \u201ca delegation of power to the General Assembly,\u201d \u201cmerely [recognizes] ... the [General Assembly\u2019s] power in this regard.\u201d Id. The Commission\u2019s recommended modifications to the constitutional provisions relating to the General Assembly\u2019s authority over local governments were not \u201ccalculated... to bring about any fundamental change in the power of state and local government or the distribution of that power.\u201d Id. at 4. Those amendments were submitted for ratification by the voters, approved at the 1970 general election, and became effective on 1 July 1971, Act of July 2, 1969, ch. 1258, secs. 1, 2, 4,1969 N.C. Sess. Laws 1461,1479,1484. As a result, the General Assembly\u2019s well-established and long-standing authority over the organization and powers of local government currently appears in, while antedating, Article VII, Section 1, which provides, in pertinent part, that:\nThe General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable.\nN.C. Const, art. VII, \u00a7 1.\nArticle II, Section 24 expressly precludes the General Assembly from \u201cenact[ing] any local, private, or special act or resolution\u201d concerning fourteen \u201c[prohibited subjects.\u201d Among other things, Article II, Section 24 provides that:\n(1) Prohibited subjects. - The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution:\n(a) Relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances;\n(e) Relating to non-navigable steams;\n(j) Regulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing;\n(3) Prohibited acts void. - Any local, private, or special act or resolution enacted in violation of the provisions of this Section shall be void.\nN.C. Const. art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(a), (3). Although the General Assembly is prohibited from \u201cenact[ing] any local, private, or special act\u201d regarding any of the fourteen subjects listed in Article II, Section 24(1) \u201cby the partial repeal of a general law,\u201d id. \u00a7 24(2), the General Assembly \u201cmay . . . repeal local, private, or special laws enacted by it,\u201d id., and \u201cenact general laws regulating the matters set out\u201d in the relevant constitutional provision, id. art. II, \u00a7 24(4).\nArticle II, Section 24, which was Article II, Section 29 at the time of its original adoption, was one of three constitutional amendments seeking to curtail local, private, and special legislation that were submitted for ratification by the General Assembly in 1915, were ratified by the people on 7 November 1916, and became effective on 10 January 1917. See Act of Mar. 9, 1915, ch. 99, secs. 1, 8, 1915 N.C. Pub. [Sess.] Laws 148, 148-49, 151; see also Kornegay v. City of Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441, 449, 105 S.E. 187, 191 (1920) (describing the adoption of former Article II, Section 29; Article VIII, Section 1; and former Article VIII, Section 4 as \u201ca complete and comprehensive scheme\u201d intended to \u201cremedy\u201d the \u201cfully realized... evils of special, local, and private acts\u201d and \u201cto get rid of special legislation as far as practicable\u201d). As the history of Article II, Section 24 demonstrates:\nThe organic law of the State was originally drafted and promulgated by a convention which met at Halifax in December, 1776. During the ensuing 140 years, the Legislature of North Carolina possessed virtually unlimited constitutional power to enact local, private, and special statutes. This legislative power was exercised with much liberality, and produced a plethora of local, private, and special enactments. As an inevitable consequence, the law of the State was frequently one thing in one locality, and quite different things in other localities. To minimize the resultant confusion, the people of North Carolina amended their Constitution at the general election of 1916 so as to deprive their Legislature of the power to enact local, private, or special acts or resolutions relating to many of the most common subjects of legislation.\nIn thus amending their organic law, the people were motivated by the desire that the General Assembly should legislate for North Carolina in respect to the subjects specified as a single united commonwealth rather than as a conglomeration of innumerable discordant communities. To prevent this laudable desire from degenerating into a mere pious hope, they decreed in emphatic and express terms that \u201cany local, private, or special act or resolution passed in violation of the provisions of this section shall be void[.]\u201d\nWilliams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C., 357 N.C. 170, 185-86, 581 S.E.2d 415, 426-27 (2003) (first alteration in original) (quoting Idol v. Street, 233 N.C. 730, 732-33, 65 S.E.2d 313, 314-15 (1951) (quoting N.C. Const. of 1868, art. II, \u00a7 29 (1917) (now art. II, \u00a7 24(3)))).\nIt was the purpose of the amendment to free the General Assembly from the enormous amount of petty detail which had been occupying its attention, to enable it to devote more time and attention to general legislation of statewide interest and concern, to strengthen local self-government by providing for the delegation of local matters by general laws to local authorities, and to require uniform and coordinated action under general laws on matters related to the welfare of the whole State.\nHigh Point Surplus Co. v. Pleasants, 264 N.C. 650, 656, 142 S.E.2d 697, 702 (1965).\nAlthough the majority posits that Article VII, Section 1 is more recent in time than Article n, Section 24 and, consequently, that the provisions in Article VII, Section 1 are to be given their \u201cfull application\u201d to the extent there is any conflict between these two constitutional provisions, I am unable to agree with this logic. As was noted above, the modifications to Article VII that led to the enactment of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1 were not \u201ccalculated ... to bring about any fundamental change in the power of state and local government or the distribution of that power.\u201d Report of the North Carolina State Constitution Study Commission 4. In other words, Article VII, Section 1 was not designed to effectuate any substantive change to the General Assembly\u2019s authority over units of local government and did nothing more than reflect the same legislative authority that existed when Article II, Section 24 was adopted, effectively making Article II, Section 24, rather than Article VII, Section 1, more recent in time. As a result, given that the enactment of Article VII, Section 1 did not have the effect of changing existing North Carolina law, Article II, Section 24 and this Court\u2019s decisions construing it remain critical to a proper resolution of this case.\nAs noted earlier, the State and County argue that the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction constitutes the \u201cfixing of boundaries\u201d for purposes of Article VII, Section 1, rendering the limitations on local legislation imposed by Article II, Section 24 inapplicable to the Boone Act, a proposition with which the Court appears to agree. Although the Town acknowledges that Article VII, Section 1 gives the General Assembly plenary authority over municipal boundaries, it contends that the \u201cboundaries\u201d referenced in the relevant constitutional provision are the municipal boundaries that are fixed at the time of initial incorporation or by means of subsequent charter amendments or annexations rather than the area within which a municipality is authorized to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction; that extraterritorial jurisdiction relates to regulatory power or authority rather than the establishment of municipal boundaries; that the establishment and exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction is materially different from the initial establishment or subsequent alteration of municipal boundaries; and that any alteration in the regulatory authority that the Town is entitled to exercise is subject to constitutional limitations, such as those contained in Article II, Section 24, on the General Assembly\u2019s authority to \u201cgive such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable,\u201d N.C. Const. art. VII, \u00a7 1. I find this interpretation of Article VII, Section 1 persuasive.\nNeither the State, the County, nor the Court point to any cases holding that the exercise of extraterritorial land use regulatory authority constitutes the \u201cfixing of boundaries\u201d for purposes of Article VII, Section 1. The only reason that a municipality is required to define the area in which it is entitled to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction is to specify the location or locations within which the municipality can take a limited number of actions that could not otherwise be taken there with respect to regulation of the planning, development, and use of land, including (1) the subdivision of land, N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-371 to -377 (2015); (2) zoning, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-381 to -393 (2015); (3) historic districts and landmarks, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.1 to -400.15 (2015); (4) private development agreements, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.20 to -400.32 (2015); (5) wireless telecommunications facilities, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.50 to -400.53 (2015); (6) the acquisition of open space, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-401 to -407 (2015); (7) building inspections, id. \u00a7 160A-411 to t439 (2015); (8) minimum housing standards, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-441 to -450 (2015); and (9) community appearance standards, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-451 to -455 (2015), as well as certain other \u201c[m]iscellaneous [pjowers\u201d delineated in Part 8 of Article 19 of Chapter 160A, such as community development programs and activities, the acquisition and disposition of property for redevelopment, urban development action grants, and urban homesteading programs, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-456 to -457.2 (2015); erosion and sedimentation control, id. \u00a7 160-458 (2015); floodway regulation, id. \u00a7 160A-458.1 (2015); mountain ridge protection, id. \u00a7 160A-458.2 (2015); downtown development projects, id. \u00a7 160A-458.3 (2015); designation of transportation corridor official maps, id. \u00a7 160A-458.4 (2015); storm-water control, id. \u00a7 160A-459 (2015); and programs to finance energy improvements, id. \u00a7 160A-459.1 (2015). See David W. Owens, Univ. of N.C. Sch. of Gov\u2019t, Land Use Law in North Carolina 31 & n.47 (2d ed. 2011) (stating that, \u201c[w]hen a city adopts an extraterritorial boundary ordinance, the city acquires jurisdiction for all of its ordinances adopted under Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes\u201d (citing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-360(a)); see also id. at 30 (discussing how concerns about \u201cchaotic\u201d development \u201calong the urban fringe, often in unregulated areas just outside of city corporate limits,\u201d resulted in the General Assembly\u2019s decision to authorize cities to implement \u201c \u2018perimeter zoning,\u2019 which is now known as municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction\u201d). On the other hand, the initial creation of municipal boundaries and the process of extending those boundaries through boundary extension legislation or annexation results in the identification of those individuals entitled to vote in municipal elections and receive municipal services and required to pay municipal taxes and to be subject to the full panoply of the municipality\u2019s authority. See, e.g., N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-31 (2015) (annexation by petition); Frayda S. Bluestein, Incorporation, Annexation, and City-County Consolidation, in County and Municipal Government in North Carolina 15, 17-24 (Frayda S. Bluestein ed., 2d ed. 2014) [hereinafter County and Municipal Government] (discussing the various forms of statutorily authorized annexation, required provision of governmental services, and taxation of newly annexed property); Trey Allen, General Ordinance Authority, in County and Municipal Government, 77, 84 (stating that, \u201c[f]or the most part, a city\u2019s police power ordinances apply only within the corporate limits and to any city-owned property or right-of-way outside the city,\u201d although \u201c[a] city may enforce zoning and other development ordinances inside its corporate limits and within its extraterritorial jurisdiction\u201d (citing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-176 (2013)). Thus, even though a municipality must define the boundary within which it intends to exercise extraterritorial regulatory authority, the enforcement of those powers, rather than the establishment of a territorial boundary, is the defining characteristic of extraterritorial jurisdiction, rendering legislative decisions relating to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction subject to constitutional limitations not applicable to legislation prescribing and governing the establishment of municipal boundaries. New Bern II, 338 N.C. at 438, 450 S.E.2d at 740 (rejecting the county\u2019s argument that local legislation removing the city\u2019s authority to conduct building code inspections relating to certain properties located within the city\u2019s corporate limits and shifting that authority to the county was within the General Assembly\u2019s \u201cplenary powers to enact local laws pursuant to Article VII, Section 1\u201d (citing State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 448, 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989))).\nIn addition, the Court holds that the Boone Act is not subject to the limitations upon the enactment of local legislation contained in Article II, Section 24 because extraterritorial jurisdiction implicates the \u201corganization and government\u201d of units of local government as authorized by Article VII, Section l, and that the Boone Act \u201cis an exercise of the General Assembly\u2019s plenary authority to \u2018provide for the organization and government and fixing of boundaries\u2019 of local government under the first clause of Article VII, Section 1.\u201d However, the Court has not cited any prior decisions of this Court holding that the limitations imposed by Article II, Section 24 do not apply to legislation, such as the Boone Act, effectuating what amounts to the reassignment of local government jurisdiction over particular subjects of regulation, or that the \u201cpowers and duties\u201d which the General Assembly is authorized to delegate to local governments pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 are not subject to the limitations upon legislative authority imposed by Article II, Section 24, and I know of none. On the contrary, this Court has repeatedly invalidated local acts changing the existing assignment of regulatory authority among units of local government as violative of Article II, Section 24.\nA careful review of this Court\u2019s decisions concerning Article II, Section 24 demonstrates that we have repeatedly held that the enactment of local legislation which had the effect of shifting, reassigning, or re-delegating the authority to regulate certain activities from one unit of local government to another violated Article II, Section 24 without ever stating that the analysis required by Article II, Section 24 is limited to instances involving the exercise of \u201cpower\u201d separate and apart from the reassignment of regulatory jurisdiction. For example, we have held that local legislation transferring the authority to enforce health and safety regulations from one local government entity to another was invalid pursuant to Article II, Section 24. See, e.g., New Bern II, 338 N.C. at 440,450 S.E.2d at 741 (invalidating legislation that shifted responsibility for enforcing the State Building Code by expanding Craven County\u2019s jurisdiction to include certain properties located within New Bern\u2019s municipal corporate boundaries as impermissible local legislation relating to health and sanitation); see also Idol, 233 N.C. at 733, 65 S.E.2d at 315 (finding it \u201cclear beyond peradventure\u201d that legislation authorizing the consolidation of the Winston-Salem and Forsyth County health departments and providing for the appointment of a joint city-county board to administer the public health laws in the affected jurisdictions constituted a prohibited \u201clocal act relating to health\u201d); Bd. of Health v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 220 N.C. at 143, 16 S.E.2d at 679 (emphasizing our \u201ccommit[ment] to the proposition that a law affecting the selection of officers to whom is given the duty of administering the health laws is a law \u2018relating to health\u2019 \u201d while invalidating a local law requiring that the county health officer appointed by the county board of health be confirmed by the Nash County Board of Commissioners (citing Sams v. Bd. of Cty. Comm\u2019rs, 217 N.C. 284, 285, 7 S.E.2d 540, 541 (1940))); Sams, 217 N.C. at 285-86, 7 S.E.2d at 541 (concluding that a local act \u201cundertak[ing] to create for Madison County, alone, a county board of health and to name its members\u201d \u201cconflict[ed] with the constitutional restrictions upon the power of the General Assembly imposed by\u201d Article II, Section 24). The Court\u2019s decision that the Boone Act is not subject to the limitations upon the enactment of local legislation spelled out in Article II, Section 24 conflicts with the clear import of these decisions.\nAs support for its broad interpretation of \u201corganization and government\u201d as used in the first part of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1, the Court conducts a plain language analysis focusing upon dictionary definitions of the relevant words. However, the plain language in which the provision in question is couched suggests to me that the phrase \u201corganization and government\u201d refers to the creation of units of local government and the manner in which those units of local government are governed rather than the powers that those units are entitled to exercise. My interpretation is fully consistent with the numerous decisions upon which the Court relies, almost all of which relate to the establishment of municipal boundaries or the creation or abolition of units of local government, rather than to the authority that units of local government are entitled to exercise. Unlike the majority\u2019s interpretation, this interpretation of \u201corganization and government\u201d also avoids overly narrowing or eviscerating the \u201cpowers and duties\u201d language contained in the second part of the first paragraph of Article VII, Section 1, see Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 137 N.C. 310, 312, 49 S.E. 353, 354 (1904) (stating that, \u201c[i]f different portions [of the state constitution] seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make some words idle and nugatory\u201d (quoting Thomas M. Cooley, Cooley\u2019s Constitutional Limitations 92 (7th ed. 1903))); see also Lacy v. Fid. Bank of Durham, 183 N.C. 374, 380, 111 S.E. 612, 615 (1922) (stating that the constitution should be \u201cconstrued so as to allow significance to each and every part of it if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\u201d (citation omitted)), and does not conflict with the numerous decisions invalidating local government reorganizations cited in the preceding paragraph. As a result, for all these reasons, I cannot agree that the Boone Act constitutes a valid exercise of the General Assembly\u2019s authority to provide for the \u201corganization and government\u201d of local governmental bodies.\nEven if the enactment of local legislation eliminating the Town\u2019s authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction constitutes the alteration of municipal corporate boundaries and the exercise of the General Assembly\u2019s authority over the \u201corganization and government\u201d of units of local government, our opinion in Piedmont Ford Truck Sale indicates that the limitations on the enactment of local legislation imposed by Article II, Section 24 remain relevant. In that case, the owners of recently annexed property challenged the validity of a local act authorizing the City of Greensboro to annex certain land contiguous to Greensboro\u2019s existing corporate limits, contending, among other things, that the challenged legislation constituted an impermissible local law relating to health and sanitation in violation of Article II, Section 24(1)(a). 324 N.C. at 500, 380 S.E.2d at 108. In rejecting the property owners\u2019 challenge to the validity of the legislation in question, which, like the challenge advanced by the Town in this case, rested upon the powers or duties that the Greensboro would be required to exercise (or precluded from exercising) in the relevant area, we acknowledged that the alteration and extension of Greensboro\u2019s municipal corporate boundaries fell within the ambit of Article VII, Section 1. Id. at 501-02, 380 S.E.2d at 109. In spite of the fact that the legislation at issue in that case constituted \u201cthe fixing of boundaries\u201d for purposes of Article VII, Section 1 and effectuated what the Court has labeled in this case as a restructuring of the regulatory jurisdiction made available to the City of Greensboro by subjecting the annexed territory and those persons living within it to the full panoply of rights, obligations, and regulations available to and imposed upon City residents, this Court did not refrain from conducting an Article II, Section 24 analysis, as consistency with the Court\u2019s decision in this case would seem to require. Instead, we proceeded to analyze the substance of the property owners\u2019 contention that the legislation in question, which required the City to provide solid waste collection service in the newly annexed territory, constituted impermissible local legislation relating to health and sanitation in violation of Article II, Section 24(1)(a). Id. at 504-05, 380 S.E.2d at 110-11. Although we ultimately held that the legislation in question did not violate Article II, Section 24(1)(a), id. at 505-06, 380 S.E.2d at 110-11, the fact that we reached the merits of the property owners\u2019 claim under Article II, Section 24 suggests that a local act that alters local government jurisdictional boundaries and reorganizes units of local government is not immune from challenge \u25a0under Article II, Section 24. Thus, even if the Boone Act amounted to a revision of municipal boundaries or the organization of local government, Piedmont Ford Truck Sale suggests that the limitations upon the enactment of local legislation enunciated in Article II, Section 24 remain applicable in the event that the legislation in question has the effect of altering the local government\u2019s powers or duties relating to prohibited subjects such as health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances. As a result, for all these reasons, I believe that we are required to address the merits of the Town\u2019s challenge to the Boone Act under Article II, Section 24.\nThe first step in determining whether the Boone Act violates Article II, Section 24 would ordinarily be for us to decide whether the Boone Act \u201cis a local act prohibited by Article II, section 24 of the Constitution\u201d or \u201ca general law which the General Assembly has the power to enact.\u201d Adams, 295 N.C. at 690, 249 S.E.2d at 406. In this case, however, the State and the County have conceded that the Boone Act is a local act. As a result, we need only determine whether the Boone Act \u201c[r]elat[es] to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances,\u201d N.C. Const, art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(a), \u201c[r]elat[es] to non-navigable streams,\u201d id. \u00a7 24(1)(e), or \u201c[r]egulat[es] labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing,\u201d id. \u00a7 24(1)(j).\nAlthough the stated purpose of a local act and its substantive provisions are undoubtedly relevant to the determination of whether a local law violates Article II, Section 24(1), City of Asheville v. State, _ N.C. _, _, _S.E.2d _, _ (Dec. 21, 2016) (93A15-2), our recent precedent clearly indicates that the practical effect of the challenged legislation is pertinent to, and perhaps determinative of, the required constitutional inquiry, e.g., Williams, 357 N.C. at 189, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (concluding that, while \u201cthe record demonstrates that. . . the intent of the enabling legislation and the Ordinance [enacted pursuant to the challenged legislation] is to prohibit discrimination in the workpldce, the effect of these enactments is to govern the labor practices of [certain businesses] in Orange County\u201d); New Bern II, 338 N.C. at 433-42, 450 S.E.2d at 737-42 (concluding that legislation shifting the responsibility for enforcing the State Building Code with respect to certain buildings from the City of New Bern to Craven County constituted unconstitutional local acts related to health and sanitation). Thus, we must determine the extent to which the Boone Act impermissibly impinges upon one of the subjects about which the General Assembly lacks the authority to enact local legislation by examining the stated purpose of the challenged legislation, the content of its substantive provisions, and the practical effect that the challenged legislation will have if it is allowed to go into effect.\nAs we noted in City of Asheville, this Court has not, to date, clearly indicated when a local act does and does not \u201crelate\u201d to a prohibited subject for purposes of Article II, Section 24. For the reasons set forth in that decision, the issue of whether a local law relates to one of the prohibited subjects enumerated in Article II, Section 24 requires us to consider whether, in light of its stated purpose and practical effect, the Boone Act has a material, but not exclusive or predominant, connection to one of those purposes. In undertaking the required analysis in a case, such as this one, which involves legislation implicating a broad range of issues rather than a single subject that has been subject to a facial, rather than an as-applied challenge, I believe that we are required to evaluate the challenged legislation as a whole and to ascertain the materiality of the relationship between the challenged legislation and the prohibited subjects delineated in Article II, Section 24 by determining whether the challenged legislation, considered in its entirety, has a material relationship to one or more of those prohibited subjects. Any other approach will fail to honor the presumption of constitutionality to which legislation enacted by the General Assembly is entitled and result in a mistaken understanding of the genuine purpose for and practical effect of the challenged legislation.\nUnlike the situation with respect to the legislation at issue in City of Asheville, the Boone Act lacks a statement of the purpose that motivated the General Assembly\u2019s decision to eliminate the Town\u2019s ability to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, the clear effect of the General Assembly\u2019s decision to enact the Boone Act is to prevent the Town from regulating certain activities in the existing extraterritorial area and to preclude the Town from exercising such authority in additional areas in the future. Although the Boone Act does not explicitly \u201cundo\u201d the designation of the extraterritorial areas in which the Town was entitled to exercise regulatory jurisdiction, see Act of June 26, 2014, ch. 33, sec. 1, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 2014) 139, 140 (stating that \u201cthe Town of Boone shall not exercise any powers of extraterritorial jurisdiction as provided in Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes\u201d), I am not convinced that the General Assembly intended to create a zone in which no local governmental entity has the ability to exercise regulatory authority. For that reason, I see no basis for believing that the General Assembly intended to do anything other than to transfer regulatory authority with respect to the affected area from the Town to the County. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163A-320 (stating that \u201c[e]ach of the powers granted to counties by this Article and by Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes may be exercised throughout the county except as otherwise provided in G.S. 160A-360); id. \u00a7 160A-360(fl) (2015) (stating that, \u201c[w]hen a city relinquishes jurisdiction over an area that it is regulating under this Article to a county, the city regulations and powers of enforcement shall remain in effect until (i) the county has adopted this regulation or (ii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the action by which the city relinquished jurisdiction\u201d); cf. id. \u00a7 160A-360(d) (stating that, in the event that \u201ca city fails to adopt an ordinance specifying the boundaries of its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the county of which it is a part shall be authorized to exercise the powers granted by [Article 19] in any area beyond the city\u2019s corporate limits\u201d). As a result, this Court must evaluate the extent to which the entire bundle of powers removed from the Town and transferred to the County has a material connection to one of the prohibited purposes set out in Article II, Section 24, rather than the extent to which any isolated power which the Town is prevented from exercising by the Boone Act relates to a prohibited purpose.\nIn seeking to persuade this Court that the Boone Act relates to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, the Town relies upon a number of statutory provisions, including N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-381 (granting zoning authority to municipalities \u201c[f]or the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community\u201d and authorizing municipalities to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lots that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces; population densities; and the location and use of buildings, structures and land); id. \u00a7 160A-383 (providing that \u201c[z]oning regulations shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare\u201d and may address issues such as the provision of \u201cadequate light and air\u201d; the prevention of \u201covercrowding of land\u201d; avoiding undue population concentration; lessening street congestion; seeming \u201csafety from fire, panic, and dangers\u201d; and facilitating the \u201cprovision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements\u201d); id. \u00a7 160A-383.4 (authorizing regulations seeking to reduce the amount of energy consumption through the use of measures like density bonuses and similar incentives); id. \u00a7 160A-412(a) (providing for the enforcement of state laws and local ordinances relating to the \u201cconstruction of buildings and other structures\u201d; the installation of facilities such as plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems; the \u201csafe, sanitary, and healthful\u201d \u201cmaintenance of buildings and other structures\u201d; and other issues specified by the city council); id. \u00a7 160A-424(a) (providing that \u201c[t]he inspection department may make periodic inspections, subject to the council\u2019s directions, for unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise hazardous and unlawful conditions in buildings or structures within its territorial jurisdiction\u201d); id. \u00a7 160A-426(b) (providing that \u201can inspector may declare a nonresidential building or structure within a community development target area to be unsafe if\u2019 it \u201cappears ... to be vacant or abandoned\u201d and \u201cappears ... to be in such dilapidated condition as to cause or contribute to blight, disease, vagrancy, fire or safety hazard, to be a danger to children, or to tend to attract persons intent on criminal activities or other activities that would constitute a public nuisance\u201d); id. \u00a7 160A-432(c) (stating that \u201c[njothing in this section shall be construed to impair or limit the power of the city to define and declare nuisances and to cause their removal or abatement by summary proceedings, or otherwise\u201d); id. \u00a7 160A-439(a) (authorizing the adoption of ordinances providing for the repair, closing, and demolition of nonresidential buildings or structures \u201cthat fail to meet minimum standards of maintenance, sanitation, and safety established by the governing body\u201d); and id. \u00a7 160A-441 (finding \u201cthat the existence and occupation of dwellings in this State that are unfit for human habitation are inimical to the welfare and dangerous and injurious to the health, safety and morals of the people\u201d and \u201cthat a public necessity exists for the repair, closing or demolition of such dwellings\u201d). Although the statutory provisions upon which the Town relies clearly implicate issues relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, I do not believe the Boone Act, when considered as an integrated whole, has a material relation to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances.\nAs an initial matter, many of the statutory provisions to which the Town has directed our attention essentially amount to assertions that the statute in question has been enacted pursuant to the State\u2019s police power. City of Raleigh v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 275 N.C. at 460-61, 168 S.E.2d at 394 (stating that \u201c[t]he General Assembly may delegate to a municipality, as an agency of the State, authority to enact ordinances in the exercise of the police power\u201d (citation omitted)); State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 769, 51 S.E.2d 731, 734-35 (1949) (stating that the \u201cpolice power\u201d authorizes the \u201cenact[ment of] laws, within constitutional limits, to protect or promote the health, morals, order, safety, and general welfare of society\u201d and that, for \u201ca statute... to be sustained as a legitimate exercise of the police power, it must have a rational, real, or substantial relation to the public health, morals, order, or safety, or the general welfare\u201d (citations omitted)). Although the presence of language invoking the police power is certainly relevant to the inquiry that must be conducted pursuant to Article II, Section 24(1)(a), New Bern II, 338 N.C. at 439-40, 450 S.E.2d at 740-41, the ubiquity with which such language appears in the General Statutes makes it difficult for me to treat its presence as determinative for the purpose of ascertaining whether a particular piece of legislation relates to any prohibited subjects listed. As noted by a leading scholar cited with regularity by this Court, see, e.g., Adams, 295 N.C. at 690-91, 249 S.E.2d at 407, using \u201c[t]he recital of legislative intent in\u201d a statute that simply reflects \u201cstandard boiler plate language used to invoke the exercise of the police power of the state in the protection of the public health, safety and morals\u201d to bring an act within the coverage of Article II, Section 24 \u201cwould cast doubt on the validity of any exercise of the police power in less than all the counties should the General Assembly employ\u201d words such as \u201c \u2018health\u2019 in the usual descriptive formula.\u201d Joseph S. Ferrell, Local Legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly, 45 N.C. L. Rev. 340, 396 (1967) (noting this Court\u2019s reliance upon such language in State ex rel. Carringer v. Alverson, 254 N.C. 204, 207, 118 S.E.2d 408, 410 (1961), to support a determination that legislation allowing municipalities with a population of 500 or more in fourteen named counties to create a housing authority related to health and sanitation for purposes of what is now Article II, Section 24(l)(a) and stating that \u201c[a]n extension of Carringer would cast doubt on the validity of any exercise of the police power in less than all the counties should the General Assembly employ the word \u2018health\u2019 in the usual descriptive formula\u201d). Thus, the fact that the statutory provisions that a municipality is entitled to enforce while exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction were enacted pursuant to the police power should not obscure our obligation to examine the Boone Act in its entirety.\nUpon examining the practical effect of the Boone Act in its entirety, one cannot escape the conclusion that, while portions of the zoning, building code, housing quality, and urban development regulations that the Town enforces in its extraterritorial jurisdiction clearly implicate health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, the other powers that the Town is entitled to exercise on an extraterritorial basis do not have such a clear relationship to those subjects. For example, it is not clear to me that extraterritorial regulation of subdivisions, N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-371 to -377; historic districts and landmarks, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.1 to -400.15; private development agreements, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.20 to -400.32; wireless communications facilities, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-400.50 to -400.53; open spaces, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-401 to -407; community appearance .commissions, id. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-451 to -455; mountain ridges, id. \u00a7 160A-458.2; transportation corridor maps, id. \u00a7 160A-458.4; downtown development, id. \u00a7 160A-458.3; and energy improvements, id. \u00a7 160A-459.1 have much, if anything, to do with health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances. In addition, municipalities exercise zoning, building code enforcement, and housing quality regulations for a number of different purposes, including, but not limited to, the avoidance of unsightly, but not necessarily unsanitary, conditions; the protection of property values; and the development of needed infrastructure. Consistent with my understanding of the reasoning underlying the regulatory authority that the Town exercises in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the Town\u2019s Unified Development Ordinance sets out twenty-five \u201cgoals\u201d that the Town seeks to achieve through its land use policies, the vast majority of which do not appear to have any substantial bearing on health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances. Boone, N.C., Unified Dev. Ordinance, art. I, \u00a7 1.04.01 (Jan. 1, 2014). As a result, when the challenged legislation is considered as a whole, I am not satisfied that the General Assembly\u2019s decision to eliminate the Town\u2019s ability to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction has a material relation to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances.\nAlthough the Town has not made any effort to define a \u201cnon-navigable stream\u201d for purposes of Article II, Section 24(l)(e), the obverse of the term in question is well established for purposes of our State\u2019s common law regarding riparian rights, in which it is typically understood to refer to streams that are passable by watercraft. Gwathmey v. State, 342 N.C. 287, 300-01, 464 S.E.2d 674, 682 (1995) (stating that \u201call watercourses are regarded as navigable in law that are navigable in fact\u201d (quoting State v. Baum, 128 N.C. 600, 604, 38 S.E. 900, 901 (1901)), and that, \u201cif a body of water in its natural condition can be navigated by watercraft, it is navigable in fact and, therefore, navigable in law, even if it has not been used for such purpose\u201d). For that reason, I believe that a non-navigable stream for purposes of Article II, Section 24(l)(e) is a body of water over which watercraft cannot ordinarily travel. Unlike the prohibition against the adoption of local legislation relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances set out in Article II, Section 24(l)(a), this Court has never had the occasion to construe the prohibition against the enactment of local legislation relating to non-navigable streams contained in Article II, Section 24(l)(e). However, given the fact that both of these constitutional provisions'utilize identical \u201c[Relating to\u201d language, I believe that the same \u201cmateriality\u201d test that this Court adopted in City of Asheville,. N.C. at , S.E.2d at , for purposes of determining whether a particular local law relates to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances should be deemed applicable to the prohibition against the enactment of local legislation relating to non-navigable streams.\nIn seeking to persuade this Court that the Boone Act constitutes an impermissible local law relating to non-navigable streams, the Town points to N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-458, 160A-458.1, and 160A-459(a). Section 160A-458 provides that \u201c[a]ny city may enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation control ordinances as authorized by Article 4 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes, and in such enactment and enforcement shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article 4.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-458. In addition, we note that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 113A-51, which serves as the \u201cPreamble\u201d to Article 4 of Chapter 113A, provides that \u201c[t]he sedimentation of streams, lakes and other waters of this State constitutes a major pollution problem,\u201d that \u201c[c]ontrol of erosion and sedimentation is deemed vital to the public interest and necessary to the public health and welfare,\u201d and that \u201cthe purpose of\u2019 Article 4 is \u201cto provide for the creation, administration, and enforcement of a program and for the adoption of minimal mandatory standards which will permit development of this State to continue with the least detrimental effects from pollution by sedimentation.\u201d Id. \u00a7 113A-51 (2015). Similarly, section 160A-458.1 provides that \u201c[a]ny city may enact and enforce floodway regulation ordinances as authorized\u201d and in compliance with \u201cPart 6 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes,\u201d id. \u00a7 160A-458.1, with the purposes of floodplain regulation being to \u201c[mjinimize the extent of floods by preventing obstructions that inhibit water flow and increase flood height and damage,\u201d \u201c[pjrevent and minimize loss of life, injuries, property damage, and other losses in flood hazard areas,\u201d and \u201c[pjromote the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of North Carolina in flood hazard areas,\u201d id. \u00a7 143-215.51 (2015). Finally, section 160A-459 provides that \u201c[a] city may adopt and enforce a stormwater control ordinance to protect water quality and control water quantity.\u201d Id. \u00a7 160A-459. Once again, while the bundle of powers that a municipality has the authority to exercise in its extraterritorial jurisdiction includes authority that is relevant to issues relating to non-navigable streams, along with other water-related subjects, I am unable to say, when the Boone Act is considered in its entirety, that the apparent purpose or practical effect of the withdrawal of the Town\u2019s authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction upon non-navigable streams is a material one.\nFinally, the Town has failed to make a detailed argument to the effect that the Boone Act impermissibly regulates trade. As we have previously held, \u201ctrade,\u201d for purposes of Article II, Section 24(1)(j), consists of \u201ca business venture for profit and includes any employment or business embarked in for gain or profit.\u201d Cheape, 320 N.C. at 558-59, 359 S.E.2d at 798 (quoting Smith v. County of Mecklenburg, 280 N.C. 497, 508, 187 S.E.2d 67, 74 (1972), and citing Pleasants, 264 N.C. at 655-56, 142 S.E.2d at 702)). In other words, \"[pjrivate profit\" is \u201can inherent element of the concept of trade as used in\u201d Article II, Section 24(1)(j). Smith, 280 N.C. at 510, 187 S.E.2d at 75 (citing Gardner v. City of Reidsville, 269 N.C. 581, 591-92, 153 S.E.2d 139, 148 (1967)). \u201c[R]egulate\u201d for purposes of Article II, Section 24(1)Q), means \u201cto govern or direct according to rule[,] . . . to bring -under [ ] control of law or constituted authority.\u201d Williams, 357 N.C. at 189, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (quoting State v. Gulledge, 208 N.C. 204, 208, 179 S.E. 883, 886 (1935) (ellipsis in original), quoted in Cheape, 320 N.C. at 559, 359 S.E.2d at 798 (using the stated definition of \u201cregulate\u201d in applying Article II, Section 24(1) Q)). In instances where the aim or practical effect of the challenged legislation is the complete prohibition of a certain type of activity \u201cwithout regard to whether profit or other compensation [is] involved,\u201d this Court has concluded that the legislation does not regulate trade or labor. Smith, 280 N.C. at 510, 187 S.E.2d at 76 (citing State v. Chestnutt, 241 N.C. 401, 403-04, 85 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1955)); see Williams, 357 N.C. at 189-90, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (concluding that the legislation in question and the related ordinance \u201cregulate[d] labor\u201d because \u201cthe effect of these enactments [was] to govern labor practices of \u2018person[s] engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees\u2019 \u201d and \u201cregulate[d] trade\u201d because \u201c[m]ost of the employers affected by the [ordinance [were] businesses operated for gain or profit,\u201d such that \u201c[regulation of these employers ha[d] the practical effect of regulating trade\u201d (citations omitted)). Although the withdrawal of the Town\u2019s extraterritorial jurisdiction would have an impact on the business of exchanging real property for a profit, that fact does not justify a decision to invalidate the Boone Act as an impermissible attempt to regulate trade in violation of Article II, Section 24(1) (j) given that the relevant regulations affect all land use-related activities instead of being limited to those founded upon a desire for profit. Thus, I am not persuaded by this aspect of the Town\u2019s challenge to the Boone Act as well.\nAs a result, for all these reasons, while I believe that the Town has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Boone Act as violative of Article II, Section 24, and that the Town\u2019s claim is not barred by sovereign immunity considerations, I am unable, in light of the presumption of constitutionality and the breadth of the issues addressed in the Boone Act, to conclude that the challenged legislation constitutes local legislation relating to one of the prohibited subjects listed in Article II, Section 24. Although I agree with the result that the Court deems appropriate, I am unable to agree that the Boone Act implicates the General Assembly\u2019s powers over the organization, government, and boundaries of local governments and that the limitations on the enactment of local legislation set out in Article II, Section 24 have no bearing on the proper resolution of this case. As a result, I concur in the result reached by the Court without concurring in its opinion.\nJustice HUDSON joins in this concurring opinion.\n. The County echoes the State\u2019s substantive argument.\n. Even if the Town was required to plead a waiver of sovereign immunity, I believe that it complaint satisfies this requirement given that a waiver of sovereign immunity is inherent in the very constitutional challenge that the Town asserted in its complaint.\n. Although Town of Spruce Pine does not specifically state that the County\u2019s challenge to the constitutionality of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act took the form of a declaratory judgment action, the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision clearly establishes that it did. 123 N.C. App. 704, 711, 475 S.E.2d 233, 237 (1996) (stating that, \u201c[f]or standing in a declaratory judgment action, there must be a present, actual controversy at the time the pleading requesting declaratory relief is filed\u201d (citing Sharpe, 317 N.C. at 584,347 S.E.2d at 29)), rev\u2019cl on other grounds, 346 N.C. 787, 488 S.E.2d 144 (1997).\n. The Court of Appeals has never cited Wood in any subsequent decision.\n. Although Wood does not mention the \u201cacceptance of a benefit\u201d theory, Fayetteville was challenging the constitutionality of certain limitations that the General Assembly had placed upon the exercise of authority contained in the same statute upon which Fayetteville predicated its claim to have a right to annex the affected area. As a result, the outcome reached in Wood is consistent with that compelled by the \u201cacceptance of benefits\u201d theory.\n. Article VUI, Sections 1 and 4 provided, after the adoption of the 1916 amendments, that:\nSection 1. No corporation shall be created nor shall its charter be extended, altered, or amended by special act, except corporations, for charitable, educational, penal, or reformatory purposes that are to be and remain under the patronage and control of the State; but the General Assembly shall provide by general laws for the chartering and organization of all corporations, and for amending, extending, and forfeiture of all charters, except those above permitted by special act. All such general laws and special acts may be altered from time to time or repealed; and the General Assembly may at any time by special act repeal the charter of any corporation.\n[Section 4.] It shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide by general laws for the organization of cities, towns, and incorporated villages, and to restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to prevent abuses in assessment and in contracting debts by such municipal corporations.\nCh. 99, sec. 1, 1915 N.C. Pub. [Sess.] Laws at 149. This Court held, in a sharply divided opinion, that Article VM, Section 1 only applied to \u201cprivate or business corporations, and does not refer to public or gwasi-public corporations acting as governmental agencies,\u201d Komegay, 180 N.C. at 446,105 S.E. at 189 (quoting Mills v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 175 N.C. 215, 219, 95 S.E. 481,482 (1918)), and that, since the general law provision contained in Article Vin, Section 4 was directory, rather than mandatory, id. at 448, 105 S.E. at 190, it did not prevent the enactment of local or special legislation governing the organization and operation of municipal governments, id. at 448-50,105 S.E. at 190-91. Article Vm, Section 4 was deleted from the North Carolina Constitution when Article VII, Section 1 was adopted. Ch. 1258, sec. 1, 1969 N.C. Sess. Laws at 1479.\n. Neither the State nor the Town argued that the Boone Act involves the \u201corganization and government\u201d of local governments as provided for in Article VII, Section 1.\n. The language quoted by the Court from Piedmont Ford Truck Sale does not appear in that portion of our opinion addressing the property owners\u2019 claim in reliance upon Article II, Section 24. 324 N.C. at 502, 380 S.E.2d at 109 (stating that \u201c[t]he extension of boundaries of cities has been held to be a political decision which is not protected, by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of North Carolina\u201d in addressing the property owners\u2019 argument in reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution (citations omitted)).\n. The parties have made conflicting assertions about the origin of the Town\u2019s authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. In 1959, the General Assembly authorized municipalities with populations of \u201c2,500 or more\u201d in eighty-one counties to \u201cadopt[ ] zoning regulations\u201d \u201cextending for a distance of one mile beyond [their corporate] limits in all directions.\u201d Act of June 19, 1959, ch. 1204, sec. 1,1959 N.C. Sess. Laws 1354, 1354-55 (codified at N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160-181.2 (1959)). However, municipalities located in eighteen counties, including Watauga, were specifically excluded from the coverage of this legislation. Id., sec. 1, at 1355. In 1961, the General Assembly authorized municipalities with a population of 1,250 or more to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and eliminated the exclusion for municipalities located in Watauga County. Act of May 30, 1961, ch. 548, secs. 1, 1%, 1961 N.C. Sess. Laws 748 (amending N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-181.2 (1959)). In view of the fact that an act \u201celiminating a county from a list of [counties] excepted\u201d and \u201cmaking the provisions of\u2019 a general law applicable to that county is \u201ctantamount to a re-enactment of the general law making it applicable\u201d to the county in question rather than a local law, State v. Ballenger, 247 N.C. 216, 217-18, 100 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1957), the 1961 Act appears to have been a general, rather than a local, law.\n. The applicability of the analytical approach that I deem appropriate in this case hinges upon the fact that the General Assembly has treated the range of issues about which a municipality would ordinarily be entitled to exercise regulatory authority as a unified whole. In other words, the applicable legislation authorizes a municipality, in the exercise of its discretion, to do a number of different things in regulating land use in its extraterritorial jurisdiction without in any way indicating that the availability of these different types of regulatory authority should be treated as severable. A subject-by-subject approach would, of course, be perfectly permissible in the event that the challenged legislation addressed a number of discrete issues that the General Assembly has not linked together.\n. The statement from State ex rel. Camngex discussed in the text constituted mere dicta given our holding that the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiffs action based upon his failure to establish standing to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation in question. 264 N.C. at 208, 118 S.E.2d at 410-11.\n. More specifically, the Town\u2019s goals of \u201c[p]rotect[ing] water quality,\u201d \u201c [p]rotect[ing] designated water supply watersheds,\u201d and \u201c[s]upport[ing] public health through provision of convenient exercise opportunities\u201d appear to have a material relationship to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, while \u201cpresenting] and protecting] areas and landmarks of historic significance,\u201d \u201c[preventing degradation of natural drainage areas,\u201d \u201c[m]inimiz[ing] public and private losses due to flood conditions,\u201d \u201c[m]inimiz[mg] public and private losses due to slope failure caused by land disturbance of steep and very steep slopes,\u201d \u201c[p]reserv[ing] and protectpng] the scenic beauty and natural environment of the Town\u2019s hillside areas,\u201d \u201c[p]reserv[ing] and protectpng] the overall quality of life for residents and visitors,\u201d \u201c[p]reserv[ing] and protecting] the character of established residential neighborhoods,\u201d \u201c[m]aintain[ing] economically vibrant as well as attractive business and commercial areas,\u201d \u201c[e]ncourag[ing] signage that maintains, enhances, and is compatible with the beauty and unique character of the Town,\u201d \u201c[f]aci]itat[ing] the creation of an attractive environment,\u201d \u201c[r]etain[ing] and expandpng] the Town\u2019s employment base,\u201d \u201c[f]acilitat[ing] safe and efficient movement of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists,\u201d \u201c[e]ncourag[ing] public transit,\u201d \u201c[e]ncourag[ing] walkability and bikeability,\u201d \u201c[m]aintain[ing] orderly and compatible land-use and development patterns,\u201d \u201c[e]ncourag[ing] environmentally responsible development practices,\u201d \u201c[p]romot[ing] reha-bilitationandreuseofolderbuildings,\u201d\u201c[m]aintain[ing]arangeofhousingchoicesand options,\u201d \u201c[e]stablishingclearandefficientdevelopmentreviewandapprovalprocedures,\u201d\u201c[p]rotect[ing] community property values,\u201d \u201c[p]rotect[ing] and balancpng] private property rights,\u201d and \u201c[b]ring[ing] about [the] eventual improvement or elimination of non-conformities\u201d do not. Id.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Justice ERVIN" }, { "text": "Justice BEASLEY\ndissenting.\nBecause I disagree with the majority\u2019s holding that the Boone Act does not violate Article II, Section 24,1 would affirm the decision of the three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County, that the revocation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction powers of the Town of Boone (Town) violated \u201cthe prohibition on local acts contained in Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.\u201d Therefore, I respectfully dissent.\nThe first issue before us is to determine whether the facial challenge passes constitutional muster. The party bringing forth a facial challenge \u201cmust show that there are no circumstances under which the statute might be constitutional.\u201d Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 363 N.C. 500, 502, 681 S.E.2d 278, 280 (2009) (citation omitted). This Court \u201cseldom upholdfs] facial challenges because it is the role of the legislature, rather than this Court, to balance disparate interests and find a workable compromise among them.\u201d Id. at 502, 681 S.E.2d at 280. This Court has consistently stated that a facial challenge is \u201cthe most difficult challenge to mount successfully.\u201d State v. Bryant, 359 N.C. 554, 564, 614 S.E.2d 479, 485 (2005) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987)). However, this Court\u2019s analysis does not end there. This Court must also \u201cmeasure the balance struck by the legislature against the minimum standards of the constitution.\u201d Id. at 565, 614 S.E.2d at 486 (quoting Henry v. Edmisten, 315 N.C. 474, 491, 349 S.E.2d 720, 731 (1986)). \u201cThe best way for the Court to discharge this function is for it to enunciate a workable principle as to what process the law of the land minimally requires.\u201d Henry, 315 N.C. at 491, 340 S.E.2d at 731. Here those minimum standards require that the General Assembly not enact local laws that relate to the prohibited subjects enumerated within Article n, Section 24. The Boone Act grants the General Assembly the authority to withdraw certain powers from the Town that relate to the constitutionally prohibited subjects listed in Article II, Section 24; therefore, the act cannot survive a facial challenge.\nThe General Assembly has broad powers; however, it was never the intent of the drafters of the constitution that the General Assembly be granted unbridled powers. Hence, Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution (the Local Act Prohibition) provides instances in which the General Assembly is prohibited from enacting statutes that directly impact the welfare and services of local governments. Under the Local Act Prohibition, the North Carolina Constitution bars the General Assembly from enacting local laws, rather than general laws, affecting fourteen enumerated subjects. N.C. Const, art. II, \u00a7 24. In relevant part, the Local Act Prohibition provides that:\n(1) Prohibited subjects. - The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution:\n(a) Relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances;\n(e) Relating to non-navigable streams;\n(j) Regulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing.\nId. art. II, \u00a7 24(1). The Local Act Prohibition further provides that \u201c[a]ny local, private, or special act or resolution enacted in violation of the provisions of this Section shall be void.\u201d Id. art. II, \u00a7 24(3).\nThis Court has acknowledged that in enacting the Local Act Prohibition \u201cthe people were motivated by the desire that the General Assembly should legislate for North Carolina in respect to the subjects specified as a single united commonwealth rather than as a conglomeration of innumerable discordant communities.\u201d Idol v. Street, 233 N.C. 730, 732-33, 65 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1951). Further, this Court has stated that the purpose behind adopting the Local Act Prohibition was to\nfree the General Assembly from the enormous amount of petty detail which had been occupying its attention, to enable it to devote more time and attention to general legislation of statewide interest and concern, to strengthen local self-government by providing for the delegation of local matters by general laws to local authorities, and to require uniform and coordinated action under general laws on matters related to the welfare of the whole State.\nWilliams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C., 357 N.C. 170, 188, 581 S.E.2d 415, 428 (2003) (emphasis in original) (quoting High Point Surplus Co. v. Pleasants, 264 N.C. 650, 656, 142 S.E.2d 697, 702 (1965)). Therefore, if the General Assembly aims to address one of the subjects in the Local Act Prohibition, it must do so by enacting statewide laws of general applicability rather than local acts. See Williams, 357 N.C. at 188-89, 581 S.E.2d at 428 (concluding that if the General Assembly decided \u201cto address employment discrimination by means of a state statute, Article II, Section 24 requires that it enact either a statewide law applicable to employers and their employees ... or a general law that makes reasonable classifications based upon rational differences of circumstances\u201d).\nThe Local Act Prohibition provides express restrictions on the General Assembly\u2019s authority in order to safeguard against an abuse of legislative power. See N.C. Const. art. n, \u00a7 24 (limiting certain local, private, or special acts). As previously stated, the General Assembly is prohibited from enacting local, private, or special acts relating to one of the enumerated subjects. Id. art. II, \u00a7 24(1). Additionally, the Local Act Prohibition prevents the General Assembly from circumventing the prohibitions in subsection (1) by also preventing the \u201cenact[ment] [of] any such local, private, or special act by the partial repeal of a general law.\u201d Id. art. II, \u00a7 24(2). As a disincentive for the General Assembly to overstep its powers, the Local Act Prohibition states that \u201c[a]ny local, private, or special act or resolution enacted in violation of the provisions of this Section shall be void.\u201d Id. art. II, \u00a7 24(3) (emphasis added).\nIn addition to the constitutional limitations, this Court must determine through judicial review, whether the General Assembly has abused' or overstepped its legislative power or authority, thereby assessing the constitutionality of legislative acts. State ex rel. McCrory v. Berger, 368 N.C. 633, 635, 781 S.E.2d 248, 250 (2016) (citing Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5, 6-7 (1787)). Thus, this Court is required to ensure that the General Assembly is acting within its powers and that its actions do not violate direct prohibitions of our constitution.\nThe Boone Act, which was enacted in 2014 by the General Assembly, withdrew the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the Town and returned regulatory control of the extraterritorial area to the County of Watauga. Act of June 26, 2014, ch. 33, sec. 1, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 2014) 139, 140 (the Boone Act) (\u201cNotwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Boone shall not exercise any powers of extraterritorial jurisdiction as provided in Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes.\u201d). The issue here is whether the Boone Act violates the Local Act Prohibition of Article II, Section 24 of the state constitution. It is well settled law that courts in North Carolina\nhave the power, and it is their duty in proper cases, to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional\u2014 but it must be plainly and clearly the case. If there is any reasonable doubt, it will be resolved in favor of the lawful exercise of their powers by the representatives of the people.\nGlenn v. Bd. of Educ., 210 N.C. 625, 529-30, 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936).\nThe majority is convinced that because Article VII, Section 1 grants plenary power to the legislature, its analysis ends as it concludes that the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to enact the Boone Act. The majority concludes that Article II, Section 24 does not apply here. According to Article VII, Section 1:\nThe General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable.\nN.C. Const, art. VII, \u00a7 1. The majority concludes that of the two clauses in paragraph one of Article VII, Section 1, it is only under the second clause that \u201cthe General Assembly\u2019s authority over local governments [is] expressly subjected] to limitations imposed by other constitutional provisions, including the constraints on local acts in Article II, Section 24.\u201d Assuming that the qualification contained within Article VII, Section 1 only applies to the second clause, I disagree with the majority\u2019s conclusion that the Boone Act falls exclusively within the first clause. As stated in the concurring opinion, the provisions in Article VII, Section 1 relate to both municipal boundaries (clause 1) and municipal powers (clause 2). As the concurring opinion correctly states, \u201cextraterritorial jurisdiction relates to regulatory power or authority rather than the establishment of municipal boundaries\u201d and therefore, the Boone Act is more properly interpreted as relating to the municipal powers in the second clause. As such, the Boone Act is subject to Article VII, Section 1\u215b limiting language, including the limitations imposed by Article II, Section 24. The concurring opinion also correctly states that determining the constitutionality of the Boone Act requires an analysis of Article II, Section 24\u2019s prohibitions; the analysis does not stop at Article VII, Section 1, as argued by the majority. Additionally, while I agree with most of the discussion set forth in the concurring opinion regarding Article II, Section 24 and the test to be applied under it, I disagree with the application of the test proffered in the concurring opinion to the facts of this case. Specifically, in regards to whether the Boone Act violates the constitutional limitations imposed by the Local Act Prohibition, I believe that this Court\u2019s decisions in City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Board of Education, 338 N.C. 430, 450 S.E.2d 735 (1994), and Williams, 357 N.C. 170, 581 S.E.2d 415, guide our analysis.\nTo determine whether legislation violates the Local Act Prohibition we must determine whether an act is local or general. This Court follows the \u201creasonable classification\u201d test to determine whether a law is general or local. See McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510, 518-19, 119 S.E.2d 888, 894-95 (1961). An act is deemed local if it \u201cdiscriminates between different localities without any real, proper, or reasonable basis or necessity-a necessity springing from manifest peculiarities clearly distinguishing those of one class from each of the other classes, and imperatively demanding legislation for each class separately that would be useless or detrimental to the others.\u201d McIntyre, 254 N.C. at 518, 119 S.E.2d at 894 (citation omitted). Conversely, a law is general if \u201cany rational basis reasonably related to the objective of the legislation can be identified which justifies the separation of units of local government into included and excluded categories.\u201d Adams v. N.C. Dep\u2019t. of Nat. & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683, 691, 249 S.E.2d 402, 407 (1978) (quoting Joseph S. Ferrell, Local Legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly, 45 N.C. L. Rev. 340, 391 (1967)). Here the parties are in agreement that the Boone Act is a local act. Therefore, the Boone Act discriminates against the Town without \u201cany real, proper, or reasonable basis.\u201d McIntyre, 254 N.C at 518, 119 S.E.2d at 894 (citation omitted).\nIn City of New Bern, this Court analyzed the constitutionality of legislation that withdrew the City of New Bern\u2019s inspection and enforcement authority related to building, construction, fire, and safety codes for specific properties located within the city limits and reassigned those responsibilities to Craven County. City of New Bern, 338 N.C. at 433-44, 450 S.E.2d at 737-38. The City brought a challenge under Article II, Section 24. The legislation challenged in City of New Bern effectively shifted the responsibility of enforcing the building code, a power assigned to the city pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-411, from the city to the county. Id. at 437, 450 S.E.2d at 739-40. After concluding that the challenged acts were local acts, rather than general, this Court addressed whether the removal of the city\u2019s power to exercise inspection and enforcement authority pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-411 related to \u201chealth, sanitation, or the abatement of nuisances.\u201d Id. at 439, 450 S.E.2d at 740. This Court reviewed the legislature\u2019s purpose for creating the building code and held that inspections pursuant to the building code affect health and sanitation. Id. at 439-40, 450 S.E.2d at 740-41. This Court concluded that by \u201calter[ing] the selection process of those who will enforce the [c]ode,\u201d the legislation affected health and sanitation and was prohibited by the Local Act Prohibition. Id. at 442, 450 S.E.2d at 742.\nThe Court\u2019s reasoning in City of New Bern, that a law altering who is charged with enforcing health and sanitation laws is a law related to health and sanitation, has been consistently applied to similar local legislation brought before this Court. See Idol, 233 N.C. at 732-33, 65 S.E.2d at 314-15 (holding unconstitutional a local act authorizing the board of aldermen and board of commissioners to create a joint city-county board of health); Bd. of Health v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs, 220 N.C. 140, 142-44, 16 S.E.2d 677, 678-79 (1941) (holding that local statutes that affected the process of appointment of a health officer were unconstitutional because they related to health); Sams v. Bd. of Cty. Comm\u2019rs, 217 N.C. 284, 7 S.E.2d 540 (1940) (holding that legislation shifting the responsibility for enforcement of laws affecting the health of the public was barred by Article II, Section 29 (now Article 13, Section 24)). Similarly, in the present case the Boone Act directly impacts the enforcement of laws, which themselves affect health and sanitation, by removing the Town\u2019s power to enforce the building code, fire code, and plumbing code, and other like regulations within the extraterritorial jurisdiction area. This Court in City of New Bern held that shifting the responsibility of enforcing the building code away from the City inescapably related to health and sanitation, because the\nCode regulates plumbing in an effort to maintain sanitary conditions in the buildings and structures of this state and thus directly involves sanitation, and consequently the protection of the health of those who use the buildings. The enforcement of the fire regulations protects lives from fire, explosion and health hazards.\nCity of New Bern, 338 N.C. at 440, 450 S.E.2d at 741. This same reasoning must be applied here in that the Boone Act shifts the responsibility for enforcement of laws that affect health and sanitation\u2014mainly, the building code, fire code, and plumbing code\u2014from the Town to the County of Watauga. The effect on the enforcement of the building, fire, and plumbing codes in the present case is similar to that in City of New Bern, because the Boone Act has \u201calter[ed] the selection process of those who will enforce\u201d those laws. Id. at 442, 450 S.E.2d at 742. As noted in the concurring opinion and our recent decision in City of Asheville v. State, _ N.C. _, _, _ S.E.2d _, _. (2016), our current test focuses on whether, in light of its stated purpose and practical effect, the Boone Act has a material, but not exclusive or predominant, connection to one of the prohibited subjects. Thus, I would hold that shifting the responsibility for enforcement of the building code, fire code, and plumbing code would have a material connection to health and sanitation and thus, is a violation of the Local Act Prohibition of the North Carolina Constitution.\nMoreover, this Court\u2019s decision in Williams lends further support for the conclusion that the Boone Act violates the Local Act Prohibition. In Williams the challenged legislation authorized Orange County to adopt an antidiscrimination ordinance that made it unlawful for an employer \u201c[t]o fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to that individual\u2019s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, familial status, or veteran status.\u201d 357 N.C. at 175, 581 S.E.2d at 420. After concluding that the challenged legislation was a local act, this Court considered whether the legislation regulated any of the subjects listed in the Local Act Prohibition. Specifically, the Court in Williams sought to determine whether the legislation \u201cregulate[d] labor or trade.\u201d Id. at 189, 581 S.E.2d at 429; see N.C. Const. art. II, \u00a7 24(1)(j).\nIn considering whether the challenged legislation regulated labor or trade, this Court rejected the argument that the legislation regulated only the acts of discrimination and did not involve labor or trade. Williams, 357 N.C. a,t 189, 581 S.E.2d at 429. Rather, this Court concluded that \u201cwhile the intent of the enabling legislation and the Ordinance is to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, the effect of these enactments is to govern the labor practices of lperson[s] engaged in an industry affecting commerce [that] has 15 or more employees\u2019 in Orange County.\u201d Id. at 189, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (first alteration in original) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court focused on the practical effect of the legislation, and not its intended purpose, in determining that the legislation violated the Local Act Prohibition. As demonstrated by Williams, this Court\u2019s analysis is not limited to the legislative purpose or intent of an enactment. Rather, the analysis also considers the legislation\u2019s practical effect, see id. at 189-90, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (concluding that while the intent of the legislation was to prohibit discrimination, the legislation had the \u201cpractical effect of regulating trade\u201d), and whether it has a material connection to the prohibited subjects of the Local Act Prohibition, as noted in the concurring opinion and our recent decision in City of Asheville, __ N.C. at _, _ S.E.2d at _.\nConsidering the practical effect of the Boone Act, I,would hold that the Act violates the Local Act Prohibition. The Boone Act removes power from the Town of Boone to act within the extraterritorial jurisdiction area one mile outside of the town limits. The practical effect of removing this power is that the Town of Boone cannot enforce its ordinances within the one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction area, including those ordinances that relate to health and sanitation, N.C. Const. art. II, \u00a7 24(1)(a), relate to non-navigable streams, id. art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(e), and regulate labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing, id. art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(j). According to the Town\u2019s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the purposes and goals of the UDO include \u201c[p]romot[ing] the health, safety, and general welfare within the Town of Boone and its environs,\u201d \u201c[p]rotect[ing] water quality,\u201d \u201c[p]rotect[ing] designated water supply watersheds,\u201d \u201c[p]revent[ing] degradation of natural drainage areas,\u201d and \u201c[s]triv[ing] to minimize public and private losses due to slope failure caused by land disturbance of steep and very steep slopes.\u201d Boone, N.C., Unified Dev. Ordinance, art. 1, \u00a7\u00a7 1.03.01, 1.04.01 (Jan. 1, 2014). Because these ordinances themselves relate to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, as well as other prohibited subjects, legislation that shifts the responsibility of their enforcement by removing the Town\u2019s ability to enforce those ordinances also relates to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, and thereby violates the Local Act Prohibition. See City of New Bern, 338 N.C. at 442, 450 S.E.2d at 742 (holding that the shifting of responsibility for enforcement of the building code affects health and sanitation, and thus, is prohibited by the Local Act Prohibition); Bd. of Health, 220 N.C. at 143, 16 S.E.2d at 679 (concluding that two local statutes that affected the process of appointment of a health officer for Nash County were unconstitutional because \u201c[tjhis Court is . . . committed to the proposition that a law affecting the selection of officers to whom is given the duty of administering the health laws is a law \u2018relating to health\u2019 \u201d). Thus, by determining that the practical effect of the Boone Act relates to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances, I would conclude that there is a material connection between the Boone Act and the subjects listed in the Local Act Prohibition.\nAs stated above, while I agree with the general discussion in the com curring opinion, I disagree with the result that the Boone Act does not violate the Local Act Prohibition. After analyzing individually each of the subjects in the Local Act Prohibition that the Town alleged the Boone Act violated, the concurring opinion concluded that the Boone Act does not materially connect to either \u201chealth, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances,\u201d N.C. Const, art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(a), \u201cnon-navigable streams,\u201d id. art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(e), or \u201clabor, trade, mining, or manufacturing,\u201d id. art. II, \u00a7 24(l)(j). However, this Court should not analyze each of the enumerated subjects in isolation. In determining if the Boone Act violates the Local Act Prohibition, this Court should view the entire Local Act Prohibition. Thus, if this Court views all of the statutes within Article 19 of Chapter 160A that relate to \u201chealth, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances,\u201d \u201cnon-navigable streams,\u201d and \u201clabor, trade, mining, or manufacturing\u201d as a whole, then the Boone Act clearly has a material connection to the prohibited subjects enumerated in the Local Act Prohibition.\nBecause I disagree with the majority\u2019s holding that the Boone Act does not violate Article II, Section 24,1 would affirm the decision of the three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County that the revocation of the Town\u2019s powers of extraterritorial jurisdiction violated \u201cthe prohibition on local acts contained in Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.\u201d Therefore, I respectfully dissent.\n. Along with the issue of whether the Boone Act violates the Local Act Prohibition, this Court is presented with issues of sovereign immunity and standing. I agree with the analysis in the concurring opinion regarding these issues, as well as the procedural history of this case.\n. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-411, the General Assembly authorizes cities to inspect and enforce the North Carolina Building Code within their planning jurisdictions. This statute also appears within Article 19 of Chapter 160A; thus, it is among the powers that the Boone Act withdraws from the Town of Boone.\n. The concurring opinion correctly notes that the facts at issue in this case differ from the facts at issue in City of New Bern because City of New Bern involved the removal of a single power, rather than a \u201cbundle of powers\u201d as is the case here. However, the principles espoused in City of New Bern\u2014specifically the interpretation of whether the act relates to health and sanitation\u2014are instructive.\n. As quoted verbatim from the concurring opinion, the following statutory provisions removed from the Town implicate issues relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances: N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-381 (2015) (granting zoning authority to municipalities \u201c[f]or the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community\u201d and authorizing municipalities to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lots that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and other open spaces; population densities; and the location and use of buildings, structures and land); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-383 (2015) (providing that \u201c[zjoning regulations shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare\u201d and may address issues such as the provision of adequate light and air; the prevention of overcrowding; avoiding undue population concentration; lessening street congestion; securing safety from fire, panic, and dangers; and facilitating the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-383.4 (2015) (authorizing regulations seeking to reduce the amount of energy consumption through the use of measures like density bonuses and similar incentives); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-412(a) (2015) (providing for the enforcement of state laws and local ordinances relating to the construction of buildings and other structures; the installation of facilities such as plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems; the safe, sanitary, and healthful maintenance of buildings and other structures; and other issues specified by the city council); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-424(a) (2015) (providing that \u201c[t]he inspection department may malee periodic inspections, subject to the council\u2019s discretion, for unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise hazardous and unlawfifl conditions in buildings or structures within its territorial jurisdiction\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-426(b) (2016) (providing that \u201can inspector may declare a nonresidential building or structure within a community development target area to be unsafe if\u2019 it \u201cappears... to be vacant or abandoned\u201d or \u201cappears... to be in such dilapidated conditions as to cause or contribute to blight, disease, vagrancy, fire or safety hazard, to be a danger to children, or to tend to attract persons intent on criminal activities or other activities that would constitute apublic nuisance\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-432(c) (2015) (stating that \u201c[n]othing in this section shall be construed to impair or limit the power of the city to define and declare nuisances and to cause their removal or abatement by summary proceedings, or otherwise\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-439 (2015) (authorizing the adoption of ordinances providing for the repair, closing, and demolition of nonresidential buildings or structures \u201cthat fail to meet minimum standards of maintenance, sanitation, and safely established by the governing body\u201d); and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-441 (2015) (finding \u201cthat the existence and occupation of dwellings in this State that are unfit for human habitation are inimical to the welfare and dangerous and injurious to the health, safety and morals of the people\u201d and \u201cthat a public necessity exists for the repair, closing or demolition of such dwellings\u201d).\n. As quoted verbatim from the concurring opinion that notes that the following statutory provisions removed from the Town implicate issues relating to non-navigable streams: N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-458 provides that \u201c[a]ny city may enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation control ordinances as authorized by Article 4 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes, and in such enactment and enforcement shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article 4.\u201d In addition, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 113A-51 provides that \u201c[t]he sedimentation of streams, lakes and other waters of this State constitutes a major pollution problem,\u201d that \u201ccontrol of erosion and sedimentation is deemed vital to the public interest and necessary to the public health and welfare,\u201d and that \u201cthe purpose of\u2019 Article 4 is \u201cto provide for the creation, administration, and enforcement of a program and for the adoption of minimal mandatory standards which will permit development of this State to continue with the least detrimental effects from pollution by sedimentation.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 113A-51 (2015); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-458.1 provides that \u201c[a]ny city may enact and enforce floodway regulation ordinances as authorized\u201d and in compliance with \u201cPart 6 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-458.1, with the purposes of floodplain regulation being to \u201c[m]inimize the extent of floods by preventing obstructions that inhibit water flow and increase flood height and damage,\u201d \u201c [p]revent and minimize loss of life, injuries, property damage, and other losses in the flood hazard areas,\u201d and \u201c[pjromote the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of North Carolina in flood hazard areas,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-215.51 (2015). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-459 provides that \u201c[a] city may adopt and enforce a storm-water control ordinance to protect water quality and control water quantity.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-459 (2015).\n. The Town fails to point to any statutory provisions in support of the argument that the Boone Act relates to \u201clabor, trade, mining, or manufacturing.\u201d", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice BEASLEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel F.E. Smith, Jim W. Phillips, Jr., and Julia C. Ambrose, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant.", "Eggers, Eggers, Eggers & Eggers, by Stacy C. Eggers, IV, for intervenor-defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TOWN OF BOONE, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant COUNTY OF WATAUGA, Intervenor-Defendant\nNo. 93A15-2\nFiled 21 December 2016\nZoning\u2014extraterritorial jurisdiction\u2014withdrawal by legislature\nAn act by the legislature withdrawing extraterritorial jurisdiction from the Town of Boone was squarely within the legislature\u2019s general power as described in the first clause of Article VII, Section 1 of the state constitution. Local jurisdictional reorganization is precisely the type of \u201corganization and government and fixing of boundaries\u201d contemplated by the first clause of Article VII, Section 1 and historically approved by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.\nJustice ERVIN concurring in the result.\nJustice HUDSON joins in this concurring opinion.\nJustice BEASLEY dissenting.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(al) from an order entered on 29 July 2015 by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County, appointed by the Chief Justice under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-267.1. Heard in the Supreme Court on 22 March 2016.\nBrooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel F.E. Smith, Jim W. Phillips, Jr., and Julia C. Ambrose, for plaintiff-appellee.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant.\nEggers, Eggers, Eggers & Eggers, by Stacy C. Eggers, IV, for intervenor-defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0126-01", "first_page_order": 202, "last_page_order": 253 }