Justice Robert Orr
Page: 211
Once the North Carolina Court of Appeals has filed a decision,
there are two separate grounds for seeking a review as of right to the
North Carolina Supreme Court.1 If there is a dissent at the court of
appeals, the issue or issues upon which the dissent is based are
automatically eligible for review by the supreme court.2 Also, when a
decision from the court of appeals directly involves a substantial
question arising under the Constitution of the United States or of this
State, an appeal lies of right to the North Carolina Supreme Court.3
There is perhaps no aspect of appellate practice in North Carolina that
has left practitioners as perplexed as the question of what exactly
constitutes a substantial constitutional question, particularly as it applies
to the North Carolina Constitution.
Michael F. Roessler
Page: 239
Communities across North Carolina are struggling to meet the
demands placed on their public schools by booming enrollments. Hundreds
of millions of dollars in school construction money have been spent in recent
years, and hundreds of millions more are projected to be needed in coming
years. Some county governments, which are obligated under state law to
provide revenue for school capital needs, have turned to school impact fees
on new residential development to raise this revenue. North Carolinas
courts, however, have been inhospitable to counties claims that they have
the implied authority under state law to impose such fees, striking down
school impact fee ordinances in a number of counties, including Durham and
Union. The courts have concluded that counties may not impose school
impact fees without express authorization to do so from the General
Assembly.
Timothy C. Meyer
Page: 313
In the years preceding the Civil War, two North Carolina Supreme
Court Justices, Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin and Associate Justice
William Gaston, offered starkly different legal opinions on issues
relating to slavery. Despite broad similarities in their backgrounds and
their agreement on many other legal and judicial issues, Ruffin and
Gaston approached slavery from sharply contrasting perspectives. Both
men used their positions on the bench to influence the treatment and
legal status of slaves. While Ruffin vigorously defended the peculiar
institution and took the concept of chattel to a logical extreme, Gaston
denounced many of its dehumanizing elements. In fact, Gastons
opinions frequently attempted to ameliorate conditions for slaves. The
contrast is especially noteworthy given that Ruffin and Gaston served on
the same court, at the same time, with very similar backgrounds,
including the fact that both were slaveholders. This Article analyzes
their opinions on slavery and also partially seeks to explain the
differences between the two men through their backgrounds in the areas
of legislative service, religious affiliation and judicial aims.
J. Michael McGuinness
Page: 341
North Carolina state employees serve as an enormously important
part of our democratic system of government.3 Over ninety thousand
state employees carry out the functions of North Carolina government.
Jeanette K. Doran
Page: 381
Public debate surrounding so-called economic development
incentives has reverberated around the country.1 These incentives are
doled out in a variety of forms, including tax credits, direct cash
subsidies and tax exemptions, purportedly designed to stimulate
economic development by facilitating location or retention of industry.2
Economists, attorneys and public officials have long debated the
effectiveness of these measures, particularly relative to the cost of
incentives.
Lawrence Anderson Moye IV
Page: 411
Dont know much about the worst problem that no ones ever
heard about?1 The following two brief hypothetical situations illustrate
the major problem of judicial partition by sale in North Carolina.
Evan M. Musselwhite
Page: 451
In recent years, the United States, as well as North Carolina, has
seen a dramatic increase in the number of prescription narcotic
medications diverted for non-medical use and abuse.
Rebecca Yoder
Page: 477
When analyzing the constitutionality of a statute that may result in
an expansion of federal power, those on the bench who favor less federal
regulation have sometimes highlighted the important role of the states as
"laboratories."
