374 N.C. 254
N.C.2020Background:
- In 1999 the General Assembly enacted Session Law 1999-35 amending N.C.G.S. § 160A-360 as to the Town of Pinebluff: it allowed Pinebluff to extend its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) up to two miles and provided that upon presentation of evidence of an annexation the County Board "shall adopt a resolution" authorizing ETJ under the amended subsection (f).
- In July 2007 Pinebluff annexed about fifteen acres; in October 2014 Pinebluff requested Moore County adopt a resolution to extend its ETJ two miles beyond the annexed area under the amended statute.
- Moore County held hearings and unanimously refused the requested resolution, construing the local act and § 160A-360 differently than Pinebluff.
- Pinebluff sued for a writ of mandamus; the trial court granted summary judgment ordering Moore County to adopt the resolution; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether the local act (S.L.1999-35) implicitly repealed or superseded § 160A-360(e), which bars a city from extending ETJ into areas where the county is adopting/enforcing zoning, subdivision regulations, and the State Building Code.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that subsections (a) and (f) as amended must be harmonized with subsection (e); because Moore County was exercising all three powers in the area, Pinebluff could not expand its ETJ there without county approval or agreement.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.L.1999-35 implicitly repealed or rendered §160A-360(e) inapplicable to Pinebluff | S.L.1999-35 requires Moore County to approve the ETJ expansion and thus overrides or nullifies (e) for Pinebluff | (e) remains effective; the local act does not impliedly repeal or conflict irreconcilably with (e) | No implied repeal; subsections must be harmonized and (e) remains applicable |
| Whether Pinebluff could expand its ETJ into an area where the county enforces zoning, subdivision regs, and the State Building Code without county approval | Pinebluff may extend under subsections (a)/(f) upon showing annexation and need not obtain county approval | If the county is exercising all three powers listed in (e), Pinebluff must obtain county agreement/approval before extending ETJ | Because Moore County was exercising all three powers, Pinebluff could not extend its ETJ there absent county approval or mutual agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig ex rel. Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 678 S.E.2d 351 (2009) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC, 366 N.C. 518, 742 S.E.2d 776 (2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- McLean v. Durham Cty. Bd. of Elections, 222 N.C. 6, 21 S.E.2d 842 (1942) (presumption against implied repeal)
- Ridge Cmty. Inv’rs, Inc. v. Berry, 293 N.C. 688, 239 S.E.2d 566 (1977) (assume Legislature acted with knowledge of existing law)
- Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc. v. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 254 N.C. 60, 118 S.E.2d 37 (1961) (court must harmonize statutory subsections and give effect to each)
- Town of Blowing Rock v. Gregorie, 243 N.C. 364, 90 S.E.2d 898 (1956) (principle favoring harmonization of statutes)