Case Name: AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 2003-02-28
Citations: 356 N.C. 658
Docket Number: No. 68A02
Parties: AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 356
Pages: 658–658

Head Matter:
AMANDA DIXON TUCKER and JIMMY L. HODGES and BECKY J. HODGES, Petitioners v. THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MARSHALL GUS THOMAS, JR. and RHONDA GOLDEN-THOMAS, Respondents
No. 68A02
(Filed 28 February 2003)
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 148 N.C. App. 52, 557 S.E.2d 631 (2001), reversing an order and judgment entered 31 July 2000 by Judge Robert P. Johnston in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 3 February 2003.
Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P., by John H. Carmichael, for petitioner-appellants.
Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., by James O. Cobb, for respondent-appellee the Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., by Paul J. Osowski, for respondent-appellees Marshall Gus Thomas, Jr., and Rhonda Golden-Thomas.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
As to the issue on direct appeal based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.