dissenting.
Because I disagree with the application of the principle of stare decisis here, I respectfully dissent. The cases relied upon by the appellee and discussed in the majority opinion as binding include Yandle v. Mecklenburg County, 85 N.C. App. 382, 355 S.E.2d 382 (1987), and Tradewinds Campground, Inc. v. Town of Atlantic Beach, 90 N.C. App. 601, 369 S.E.2d 365 (1988). The Court in Tradewinds relied entirely on Yandle, which in turn relied primarily on Centre Development Co. v. County of Wilson, 44 N.C. App. 469, 261 S.E.2d 275 (1980), on the issue of whether the landowner may pursue injunctive relief. Because the statute upon which Centre Development relied was repealed the year following the decision, and the relevant subsection here was not mentioned in either Yandle or Tradewinds, I do not believe we are bound to follow those decisions.
In Centre Development, the issue before the Court was whether the landowner should have been permitted to pursue a claim for injunctive relief under the statutory provisions that existed at that time. The provisions that the Court held set forth an “adequate remedy at law” were found in Chapter 160A, Article 11, specifically N.C.G.S. § § 160A-246 and 160A-255, neither of which mentioned injunctions at all. All of Article 11 of N.C.G.S § 160A was repealed by the General Assembly the following year and replaced with Chapter 40A. These revisions to the statutes on eminent domain refer specifically to the landowner’s right to pursue injunctive relief. For example, N.C.G.S. § § 40A-28(g) and 40A-42(f), which set forth the procedures, plainly state that “[t]he provisions of this section shall not preclude or otherwise affect any remedy of injunction available to the owner or the condemnor.” None of the cases relied upon by the majority mentions this section. It appears, therefore, that the General Assembly, in revising this chapter of the statutes, clearly intended to preserve the rights of all parties to pursue injunctive relief.
*400Further, in Yandle, the plaintiffs claim was not dismissed upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Rather, the appeal followed a full trial on the merits. Here, the plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaint are sufficient to set forth a claim for injunctive relief, and, consistent with the revised statute, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.