August 2016 Volume XXXVI, No. 2
|
|
|
- August Greer
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 August 2016 Volume XXXVI, No. 2 Public Enterprises; Water and Sewer Impact Fees Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage, N.C. (No. 315PA15, 8/19/16) Holding Municipalities lack general statutory authority to assess water and sewer impact fees. Key Excerpt In this case we consider whether the Town of Carthage exceeded its municipal authority under the Public Enterprise Statutes, [G.S.] 160A-311 to -338 (2015), by adopting certain water and sewer impact fee ordinances. Upon approval of a subdivision of real property, the ordinances trigger immediate charges for future water and sewer system expansion, regardless of whether the landowner ever connects to the system or whether Carthage ever expands the system. As creations of the legislature, municipalities have only those powers delegated to them by the General Assembly. When Carthage adopted the ordinances at issue here, it exercised power that it had not been granted. The impact fee ordinances are therefore invalid and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. 1 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Carthage. Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, N.C. App., 776 S.E.2d 897, 2015 WL (2015) (unpublished). Applying broad construction interpretation principles under [G.S.] 160A-4, the Court of Appeals concluded that Carthage acted within its delegated municipal authority to impose and collect the impact fees under the Public Enterprise Statutes, Quality Built Homes, 2015 WL , at *4-5 (citing, inter alia, [G.S.] 160A-4 (2013); Homebuilders Ass'n of Charlotte v. City of Charlotte, 336 N.C. 37, 43-44, 442 S.E.2d 45, 50 (1994); and Town of Spring Hope v. Bissette, 305 N.C. 248, 252, 287 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1982)), which enable municipalities to establish and revise... schedules of rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the services furnished by any public enterprise, [G.S.] 160A- 314(a). Carthage asserts that under the Public Enterprise Statutes it has broad authority to collect monies for the operation, maintenance and expansion of its water and sewer systems, and that such authority extends to the collection of impact fees. Car-
2 thage claims that impact fees fall squarely within its authority to charge fees or charges under [G.S.] 160A-314. We disagree. While the enabling statutes allow Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of its water and sewer systems, the plain language of the Public Enterprise Statutes clearly fails to empower the Town to impose impact fees for future services. These enabling statutes clearly and unambiguously empower Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of water and sewer services not to collect fees for future discretionary spending. See Smith Chapel [Baptist Church v. City of Durham], 350 N.C. [805] at 811, 517 S.E.2d [874] at 878 [(1999)] (finding that the plain language of [G.S.] 160A-314 is clear and unambiguous ). A municipality's ability to establish and revise its various fees is limited to the use of or the services furnished by the enterprise, which provisions are operative in the present tense. See Dunn v. Pac. Emp'rs Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 129, 134, 418 S.E.2d 645, 648 (1992) ( Ordinary rules of grammar apply when ascertaining the meaning of a statute (citations omitted)). The language of the impact fee ordinances plainly points to future services, thus requiring Carthage to invoke prospective charging power. Both ordinances contemplate expanding the systems, including plant and storage expansion, and the water impact fee is assessed on property that is to be served by the water system. The fees are not assessed at the time of actual use, but are payable in full at the time of final [subdivision] plat approval a time when water, sewer, or other infrastructure might not have been built and only a recorded plat exists. Moreover, Carthage charges the impact fees in addition to tap fees, which are assessed when a property owner actually connects to the system. Indeed, plaintiffs were required to pay some impact fees before improving or establishing a need for services on their property. Cf. Bissette, 305 N.C. at , 287 S.E.2d at 853 (concluding that an increased rate on all customers to fund a new treatment plant did not reflect any services yet to be furnished, but merely the same service which had previously been furnished ). (Emphasis in original.) Furthermore, Carthage has the authority to charge tap fees and to establish water and sewer rates to fund necessary improvements and maintain services to its inhabitants, which is sufficient to address its expansion needs. See Bissette, 305 N.C. at , 287 S.E.2d at 853 (concluding that the town validly increased rates on all customers to pay for a necessary improvement to the already existing sewer system without which the Town could not continue to provide sewer service ). While the Public Enterprise Statutes at issue here enable Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of its water and sewer systems, the statutes clearly and unambiguously fail to give Carthage the essential prospective charging power necessary to assess impact fees. Because the legislature alone controls the extension of municipal authority, the impact fee ordinances on their face exceed the powers delegated to the Town by the General Assembly, thus overstepping Carthage's rightful authority. See Smith Chapel, 350 N.C. at 812, 517 S.E.2d at 879 (holding that the [town's] ordinance on its face exceeds the express limitation of the plain and unambiguous reading of the applicable Public Enterprise Statutes). The ordinances are therefore invalid and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the Town of Carthage. We... remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the unresolved issues. (In a footnote the Court observed, Because of its resolution of the matter, the Court of Appeals did not reach the statute of limitations or estoppel issues. Moreover, the court overruled plaintiffs' argument that they are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs. ) 2
3 Synopsis On discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, N.C. App., 776 S.E.2d 897 (2015). Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Justice Newby. Public Enterprises; Easements; Encroachments; Statute of Limitations Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Gray, N.C. (No. 108PA14-2, 8/19/16) Holding N.C. Supreme Court overrules the decision of the Court of Appeals in Pottle v. Link, 187 N.C. App. 746, 654 S.E.2d 64 (2007), insofar as that opinion deemed G.S inapplicable to actions involving encroachments on easements. Removal of the encroachment is a recovery of real property lying outside the scope of G.S. 1-50(a)(3) (six years). Utility facilities crisscross the state above, on, and beneath the ground. Their accompanying easements are not always readily subject to routine inspection by the owning utility. The drafters of G.S. 1-50(a)(3) did not intend that a utility's right to maintain such easements could be successfully challenged in a time as short as six years. The twenty year statute of limitations is applicable. G.S Key Excerpt Defendant Herbert A. Gray (defendant) owns real property located in Huntersville, North Carolina. Plaintiff Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (plaintiff or Duke) owns an easement allowing construction of and access to its power lines. A portion of defendant's property encroaches on plaintiff's easement and defendant has failed to remove the encroachment upon plaintiff's request. We consider whether plaintiff has a right to eject defendant's encroachment from the easement. Defendant contends that [G.S.] 1-50(a)(3), which establishes a six-year statute of limitations for injury to any incorporeal hereditament, bars plaintiff's claim. We conclude that removal of the encroachment is a recovery of real property lying outside the scope of subdivision 1-50(a)(3). As a result, this action falls within the twenty-year statute of limitations set out in [G.S.] Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court stated that the key issue before the Court was whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in identifying the applicable statute of limitations as being six years and accordingly barring plaintiff s claims. Defendant argues that the appropriate limitation period is the six years set out in [G.S.] 1-50(a)(3), while plaintiff contends that the twenty-year statute of limitations found in [G.S.] 1-40 is proper. The former, set out in Chapter 1, Article 5 ( Limitations, Other Than Real Property ), applies to actions for injury to any incorporeal hereditament. [G.S.] 1-50(a)(3) (2015). The latter, set out in Chapter 1, Article 4 (Limitations, Real Property ), applies to action[s] for the recovery or possession of real property. Id. [G.S.] 1-40 (2015). As a result, we must determine whether this action involves injury to an incorporeal hereditament or recovery of real property. We begin our analysis by considering the characteristics of an incorporeal hereditament, which has been defined as [a]n intangible right in land, such as an easement. Incorporeal Hereditament, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also Davis v. Robinson, 189 N.C. 589, 598, 127 S.E. 697, 702 (1925) ( An easement is an incorporeal hereditament, and is an interest in the servient estate. (citations omitted)). Consistent with this definition, we have observed that [a]n easement always implies an interest in the land. It is real property, and it is created by grant. Davis, 189 N.C. at 600, 127 S.E. at 703 (citations omitted) (quoting Atl. & Pac. R.R. v. Lesueur, 2 Ariz. 428, 430, 19 P. 157, (1888)); see also Real Property, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ( Real property can be either corporeal (soil and buildings) or incorporeal (easements). ). Accordingly, the easement in this case, while an incorporeal hereditament, is also real property.
4 Next, we review the nature of plaintiff's action. Plaintiff's easement gives plaintiff a property right to a degree of control over the use of an identified swath of land, specifically including the right to keep said strip of land free and clear of any or all structures. Plaintiff alleges that the encroachment of defendant's home into that strip interferes with and invades its rights over that tract. While plaintiff has alleged an injury to its rights as possessor of the easement, the remedy plaintiff pursues is not damages for any injury to the easement. Instead, plaintiff wishes to regain control over the part of its easement now occupied by defendant's house. Because plaintiff seeks to recover full use of its easement, and because the easement is real property, we conclude that this action is for the recovery of real property. By definition, the statutes of limitation in Chapter 1, Article 5 do not apply to the recovery of real property. See [G.S.] 1-46 (2015) (stating that the limitations periods found in Article 5 are for actions, other than for the recovery of real property ). Consequently, we conclude that plaintiff's claim is subject to the section 1-40 twenty-year statute of limitations. For similar reasons, the tenyear statute of limitations for sealed instruments found in [G.S.] 1-47(2) is inapplicable because it too is contained in Chapter 1, Article 5 of the General Statutes. Not only do we conclude that this result is dictated by the language found in the applicable statutes and cases, we acknowledge that utility facilities crisscross the state above, on, and beneath the ground. Their accompanying easements are not always readily subject to routine inspection by the owning utility. We do not believe that the drafters of [G.S.] 1-50(a)(3) intended that a utility's right to maintain such easements could be successfully challenged in a time as short as six years. 4 We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and Wieland upon finding that Duke's claims were barred by [G.S.] 1-50(a)(3). In addition, we overrule the decision of the Court of Appeals in Pottle v. Link, 187 N.C. App. 746, 654 S.E.2d 64 (2007), insofar as that opinion deemed section 1-40 inapplicable to actions involving encroachments on easements. Defendant's pending claims against other parties are unaffected by this result. Synopsis On discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, N.C. App., 766 S.E.2d 354 (2014). Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Justice Edmunds. Note: The League participated as amicus curiae in this case. Law Enforcement; Compliance with Established Procedures; Internal Operations Tully v. City of Wilmington, N.C. App. (No. COA15-956, New Hanover 8/16/16) Holding In a 2-1 decision, N.C. Court of Appeals holds that law enforcement officer adequately alleged a valid property and liberty interest in requiring defendant-city to comply with its own established promotional process. Key Excerpt Plaintiff, a city police officer, appeals from the trial court's judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant, his employer, foreclosing Plaintiff's claims for violation of his State constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection as a result of Defendant's failure to comply with its own rules and policies regarding its promotion process. Because we hold that Plaintiff has alleged a valid property and liberty interest in requiring Defendant to comply with its own established promotional process, we reverse the order of the trial court. As an initial matter, we must clarify the bases for Tully's claims that his constitutional rights have been violated. Our review of the record reveals that, both in the trial court and on appeal, the City has consistently attempted to reframe Tully's claims as assertions of a property and liberty interest in re-
5 ceiving a promotion, a position that, as the City accurately observes, is not supported by precedent. However, Tully's actual claim is that the City violated Tully's constitutional rights by failing to comply with its own policies and procedures regarding the promotional process. In other words, as Tully states in his reply brief, he is not arguing that he has an absolute property interest in being promoted. Rather, he is arguing that if the government has a process for promotion of its employees, particularly law enforcement officers who are sworn to uphold and apply the law to ordinary citizens, that process cannot be completely arbitrary and irrational without running afoul of the North Carolina Constitution. (Emphasis added). Although as noted supra, this appeal presents a matter of first impression in our State courts, courts in other jurisdictions have considered similar arguments made by government employees and have reached the same result we reach here. While not mandatory authority, these decisions present a convincing case supporting our adoption of the [United States v.] Heffner [420 F.2d 809 (4th Cir. 1969)] rule in this matter. (Citations omitted.) While the Court in Farlow [v. N.C. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam rs, 76 N.C. App. 202, 332 S.E.2d 696 (1984), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 314 N.C. 664, 336 S.E.2d 621 (1985)] considered prejudice, whereas the Heffner and [United States ex rel.] Accardi [v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L. Ed. 681 (1954)] decisions explicitly held that prejudice was irrelevant, this distinction is not pertinent here where Tully's appeal is before us from a dismissal on the pleadings. We cite Farlow merely to demonstrate that this Court has previously found the "rationale... sound" that a government entity should follow its own established procedures and rules to ensure equal treatment. See id. at 208, 332 S.E.2d at 700. In line with the reasoning discussed di, Heffner, and Farlow, we now hold that it is inherently arbitrary for a government entity to establish and promulgate policies and procedures and then not only utterly fail to follow them, but further to claim that an employee subject to those policies and procedures is not entitled to challenge that failure. To paraphrase Tully, if a government entity can freely disregard its policies at its discretion, why have a test or a grievance process or any promotional policies at all? (Emphasis in original.) In reaching this holding, we emphasize that the questions before the trial court in ruling on the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings and now before this Court on appeal are not whether the City did violate its own promotional policies and procedures and whether Tully should prevail in this matter. Instead, the dispositive questions before us are whether Tully has sufficiently alleged claims of arbitrary and capricious action by the City in its failure to follow its own procedures and whether the City has established on the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed supra, we conclude that Tully has sufficiently alleged constitutional claims and that genuine issues of material fact remain to be resolved. Accordingly, to permit Tully to engage in discovery and present a forecast of evidence to support his allegations of arbitrary and capricious action in the City's failure to follow its own policies and procedures regarding promotions, we reverse the trial court's order. (Emphasis in original; citation omitted.) Dissent- The majority acknowledges this is an issue of first impression, as our courts have never held that a governmental employer that fails to follow its own established procedures acts arbitrarily and, therefore, unconstitutionally. Because the City is acting as an employer rather than as a sovereign, and is vested with the power to manage its own internal operations, Tully s pleadings although asserting what appears to be an unfair result in a standard process do not state a viable constitutional claim. 5
6 Tully alleged in his complaint that denying him a promotion due to his answers on the test and then determining that the reason was not grievable was an arbitrary and irrational deprivation of property in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. Tully now argues on appeal that he was subjected to an arbitrary and capricious process by the City s failure to follow its own established promotional procedures, an important distinction that was not alleged in Tully s complaint. Tully says in brief that he never had a true opportunity to grieve his denial of a promotion based on his answers to the Sergeant s test. However, Tully s complaint alleges that he was given the opportunity to appeal the selection process and to be heard on his grievance, and was then informed that his grievance was denied, as the test answers were not a grievable item. Nevertheless, Tully s allegations in his complaint tend to undercut his ultimate constitutional claims where the promotional process was followed and he was heard on his grievance through the internal grievance procedure. (Emphasis in original.) Tully contends he was arbitrarily discriminated against based on test results that he was not permitted to challenge and that such arbitrary and irrational treatment violated his liberty interests as protected by the North Carolina Constitution. Further, Tully argues that his lack of opportunity to adequately challenge his test results was in violation of the WPD s own regulations. While I recognize Tully s opinion of the unfairness of the result of the WPD s testing scheme (Tully s denial of a promotion), and his unsuccessful challenge to the result, it is not clear that Tully s claims have a basis in our state constitution. Further, the cases cited by Tully in support of his claims for constitutional review relate to the government acting as a sovereign, rather than as an employer, and are inapposite to the facts at hand. (Emphasis in original.) [T]here is a crucial difference, with respect to constitutional analysis, between the government exercising the power to regulate or license, as lawmaker, and the government acting as proprietor, to manage [its] internal operation. Engquist v. Or. Dep t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 975, 983 (2008) [T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign. Id. (quoting Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 671, 128 L. Ed. 2d 686, 697 (1994) (plurality opinion)). In Engquist, the U.S. Supreme Court explained this distinction as follows: [T]he extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government s mission as employer. Government agencies are charged by law with doing particular tasks. Agencies hire employees to help do those tasks as effectively and efficiently as possible. The government s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer. Given the common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter, constitutional review of governmental employment decisions must rest on different principles than review of... restraints imposed by the government as sovereign. 553 U.S. at , 170 L. Ed. 2d at (alterations in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As the government has significantly greater leeway in its dealings with citizen employees than it does when it brings its sovereign power to bear on citizens at large[,] Engquist, 553 U.S. at 599, 170 L. Ed. 2d 984, the cases cited in the briefs submitted on behalf of plaintiff related to the government acting in its capacity as a sovereign are inapplicable here where the government acted as an employer in denying plaintiff a promotion. Because plaintiff cannot establish a valid property or liberty interest in obtaining a promotion or in the promotional process itself, nor can plaintiff establish that he was deprived of substantive due process or equal protection rights in failing to be so promoted, I dissent from the majority opinion. 6
7 Synopsis- Appeal by Plaintiff from May 2015 judgment. Reversed. Opinion by Judge Stephens, with Judge McCullough concurring. Judge Bryant dissenting. 7
2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
789 S.E.2d 454 Supreme Court of North Carolina. Quality Built Homes Incorporated and Stafford Land Company, Inc. v. Town of Carthage No. 315PA15 Filed August 19, 2016 Synopsis Background: Developers brought
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 348A16. Filed 2 March Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 348A16 Filed 2 March 2018 KEVIN J. TULLY v. CITY OF WILMINGTON Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 16 January 2018
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
LANVALE PROPERTIES, LLC v. COUNTY OF CABARRUS
LANVALE PROPERTIES, LLC v. COUNTY OF CABARRUS LANVALE PROPERTIES, LLC and CABARRUS COUNTY BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF CABARRUS and CITY OF LOCUST, Defendants. MARDAN IV, Plaintiff,
September 2017 Volume XXXVII, No. 3
September 2017 Volume XXXVII, No. 3 Personnel; Immunity; Reimbursement for Litigation Wray v. City of Greensboro, N.C. (No. 255A16, 8/18/17) Holding In a 5-2 decision, North Carolina Supreme Court holds
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 April 2014
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS REVIVE THERAPY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 28, 2016 v No. 324378 Washtenaw Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE LC No. 14-000059-NO COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 July Appeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 13 August 2012 by
NO. COA12-1385 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 July 2013 GEORGE CHRISTIE AND DEBORAH CHRISTIE, Plaintiffs, v. Orange County No. 11 CVS 2147 HARTLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.; GRAILCOAT WORLDWIDE, LLC;
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040796-1.htm All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North
BD. OF BARBER EXAMINERS
KINDSGRAB v. STATE BD. OF BARBER EXAMINERS Cite as 763 S.E.2d 913 (N.C.App. 2014) Hans KINDSGRAB, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE of North Carolina BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, Respondent Appellant. No. COA13
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WILSON, Defendant No. COA (Filed 7 March 2000)
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WILSON, Defendant No. COA98-1017 (Filed 7 March 2000) 1. Judges--recusal--no evidence or personal bias, prejudice, or interest The trial court did not err in denying
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by petitioner from order entered 30 September 2013
NO. COA14-435 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID PAUL HALL Mecklenburg County No. 81 CRS 065575 Appeal by petitioner from order entered 30 September 2013 by
NO. COA Filed: 2 June 2009
LULA SANDERS, CYNTHIA EURE, ANGELINE MCINERNY, JOSEPH C. MOBLEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION, a body politic, OFFICE OF STATE PERSONNEL,
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitu te controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW BULLETIN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW BULLETIN No. 115, October 2007 David M. Lawrence, Editor UNRECORDED UTILITY LINES A SECOND LOOK David M. Lawrence 1 Local Government Law Bulletin No. 114, 2 issued in August of this
RAWLS & ASSOCIATES, a North Carolina General Partnership Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALICE W. HURST and BILLY A. HURST, Defendants-Appellants No.
RAWLS & ASSOCIATES, a North Carolina General Partnership Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALICE W. HURST and BILLY A. HURST, Defendants-Appellants No. COA00-567 (Filed 19 June 2001) 1. Civil Procedure--summary judgment--sealed
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November v. Brunswick County No. 12 CVD 2009 SCOTT D. ALDRIDGE Defendant.
NO. COA13-450 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 November 2013 FIRST FEDERAL BANK Plaintiff, v. Brunswick County No. 12 CVD 2009 SCOTT D. ALDRIDGE Defendant. 1. Negotiable Instruments promissory
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 March 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-596 Filed: 20 March 2018 Forsyth County, No. 16 CVS 7555 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT B. STIMPSON; and BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
LILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA Filed: 5 October 2004
LILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA03-1022 Filed: 5 October 2004 1. Pleadings compulsory counterclaim negligence total damages still speculative
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed February 23, 1994, Denied March 18, 1994 COUNSEL
WEBB V. VILLAGE OF RUIDOSO DOWNS, 1994-NMCA-026, 117 N.M. 253, 871 P.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1994) WILMA WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VILLAGE OF RUIDOSO DOWNS, a New Mexico Municipality, Defendant-Appellant.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT BROWN & BROWN, INC., Appellant, v. JAMES T. GELSOMINO and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. No. 4D17-3737 [November 28, 2018] Appeal
NO. COA14-94 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 September Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 August 2013 by
NO. COA14-94 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 September 2014 KAYLA J. INMAN v. Columbus County No. 12 CVS 561 CITY OF WHITEVILLE, a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of North
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE H. KASSOTIS TOWN OF FITZWILLIAM. Argued: April 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 28, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION February 4, 2003 9:00 a.m. v No. 231704 Livingston Circuit Court GREEN OAK M.H.C. and KENNETH B. LC No. 00-017990-CZ
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 July Appeal by appellant from order entered 28 June 2013 by the
NO. COA13-1170 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF: DIXIE BUILDING, LLC from the decision of the Guilford County Board of Equalization and Review North Carolina
ORDER AFFIRMED. Division VI Opinion by JUDGE LICHTENSTEIN Hawthorne and Booras, JJ., concur. Announced August 4, 2011
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 10CA1409 Morgan County District Court No. 10CV38 Honorable Douglas R. Vannoy, Judge Ronald E. Henderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Fort Morgan, a municipal
Court of Appeals. Slip Opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
VICTOR SUNSHINE STEPHEN M. BRETT. Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) in favor of local road commissioner
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2014 ME 146 Docket: Yor-13-518 Submitted On Briefs: September 23, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014 Reporter of Decisions Panel: Majority: Dissent: SAUFLEY, C.J., and
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CARLA WARD and GARY WARD, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION January 7, 2010 9:00 a.m. v No. 281087 Court of Claims MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, LC
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
No Jackson Circuit Court TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBIA, TOWNSHIP OF. LC No CK HANOVER, and TOWNSHIP OF LIBERTY,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S TOWNSHIP OF LEONI, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2017 V No. 331301 Jackson Circuit Court TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBIA, TOWNSHIP
JOSEPH MICHAEL GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THEODIS BECK, and BOYD BENNETT, Defendants. NO.
JOSEPH MICHAEL GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THEODIS BECK, and BOYD BENNETT, Defendants. NO. COA10-1157 (Filed 5 April 2011) 1. Judgments oral orders not reduced to writing
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc RUTH CAMPBELL, ET AL., ) ) Appellants, ) ) vs. ) No. SC94339 ) COUNTY COMMISSION OF ) FRANKLIN COUNTY, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) d/b/a AMEREN
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LARRY S. HYMAN, as Liquidating Trustee of Governmental Risk Insurance Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GASTONIA, Defendant-Appellee.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, NO. 33,775
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, 2016 4 NO. 33,775 5 JASON B. DAMON and 6 MICHELLE T. DAMON, 7 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 8 v. 9 VISTA DEL NORTE
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February 2015
NO. COA13-881-2 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 SHELBY J. GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 12 CVS 4672 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under Pooling and
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA45 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0029 El Paso County District Court No. 13DR30542 Honorable Gilbert A. Martinez, Judge In re the Marriage of Michelle J. Roth, Appellant, and
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 June Appeal by plaintiff from order entered on or about 30
NO. COA10-646 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 June 2011 DOUGHERTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 09 CVD 7477 M.C. PRECAST CONCRETE, INC., Defendant Appeal by plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION. v. Case No: 5:13-MC-004-WTH-PRL ORDER
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rex Venture Group, LLC et al Doc. 13 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION v. Case
[J-41D-2017] [OAJC:Saylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION
![[J-41D-2017] [OAJC:Saylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION](/thumbs/77/75391082.jpg "[J-41D-2017] [OAJC:Saylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION")
[J-41D-2017] [OAJCSaylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. ANGEL ANTHONY RESTO, Appellee No. 86 MAP 2016 Appeal from the Order of the
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 April Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 3 April 2012 by
PHELPS STAFFING, LLC Plaintiff, NO. COA12-886 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 April 2013 v. Franklin County No. 10 CVS 1300 C. T. PHELPS, INC. and CHARLES T. PHELPS, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff
NO. COA Filed: 7 November Class Actions--ruling on summary judgment before deciding motion for class certification
ROBERT A. LEVERETTE, RICKY WHITEHEAD, and JOHN ALLEN CLARK, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. LABOR WORKS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,LABOR WORKS INTERNATIONAL
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 October Appeal by defendant from an order entered 6 August 2012 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 07/22/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
ISSUE PRESENTED FINDINGS OF FACT. The Undersigned finds that the following material facts are undisputed.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 14DHR03558 ALAMANCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al. PETITIONER, V. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GARY KULAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 13, 2006 v No. 258905 Oakland Circuit Court CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, TOM MCDANIEL, LC No. 2004-057174-CZ RACKELINE HOFF,
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 5 September 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
City of Asheville v. State of North Carolina: Finding a Limit for Legislative Reach Into Local Affairs? Seth Morris
I. Introduction City of Asheville v. State of North Carolina: Finding a Limit for Legislative Reach Into Local Affairs? Seth Morris On October 6, 2015 the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its ruling
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 September 2012
NO. COA12-131 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 September 2012 SUNTRUST BANK, Plaintiff, v. Forsyth County No. 10 CVS 983 BRYANT/SUTPHIN PROPERTIES, LLC, CALVERT R. BRYANT, JR. AND DONALD H. SUTPHIN,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKINLEY COUNTY Robert A. Aragon, District Judge
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: January 24, 2013 Docket No. 31,496 ZUNI INDIAN TRIBE, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MCKINLEY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULLTEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0115p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AUBREY STANLEY, PlaintiffAppellant, X v. RANDY VINING,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION
Wanning et al v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION John F. Wanning and Margaret B. Wanning, C/A No. 8:13-839-TMC
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 August Appeal by Defendant and cross-appeal by Plaintiff from
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
STEVEN BUELTEL, Plaintiff v. LUMBER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as Lumber Insurance Companies, Defendant. No. COA
STEVEN BUELTEL, Plaintiff v. LUMBER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as Lumber Insurance Companies, Defendant No. COA98-1006 (Filed 17 August 1999) 1. Declaratory Judgments--actual controversy--restrictive
NO. COA13-2 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 June Appeal by defendant and plaintiff from order entered 27
NO. COA13-2 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 June 2013 LEE FRANKLIN BOOTH, Plaintiff, v. Wake County No. 12 CVS 180 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant. Appeal by defendant and plaintiff from order
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE GLENS AT POMPTON PLAINS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Maxatawny Township and : Maxatawny Township Municipal : Authority : : v. : No. 2229 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: February 27, 2015 Nicholas and Sophie Prikis t/d/b/a
RICHARD HENRY CAPPS, Plaintiff, v. DANIELE ELIZABETH VIRREY, JERRY NEIL LINKER and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants NO.
RICHARD HENRY CAPPS, Plaintiff, v. DANIELE ELIZABETH VIRREY, JERRY NEIL LINKER and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants NO. COA06-655 Filed: 19 June 2007 1. Appeal and Error appealability order
TM DELMARVA POWER, L.L.C., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS January 11, 2002 NCP OF VIRGINIA, L.L.C.
PRESENT: All the Justices TM DELMARVA POWER, L.L.C., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 010024 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS January 11, 2002 NCP OF VIRGINIA, L.L.C. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ACCOMACK COUNTY Glen
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Appeal by defendant from order entered 15 July 2010 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SCOTT E. STAFNE, a single man, ) ) No. 84894-7 Respondent and ) Cross Petitioner, ) ) v. ) En Banc ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY and ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING ) DEPARTMENT
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E.R. ZEILER EXCAVATING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 18, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 257447 Monroe Circuit Court VALENTI, TROBEC & CHANDLER,
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007 WILLIAM W. YORK v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for
Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 37 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:170
Case: 1:13-cv-06594 Document #: 37 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:170 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION AMERICAN ISLAMIC CENTER, ) ) Plaintiff,
COUNSEL JUDGES. CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge. WE CONCUR: LYNN PICKARD, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. AUTHOR: CYNTHIA A. FRY. OPINION
LANTZ V. SANTA FE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING AUTH., 2004-NMCA-090, 136 N.M. 74, 94 P.3d 817 LEE LANTZ and GLORIA LANTZ, Plaintiffs-Respondents/Appellees, v. SANTA FE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Petitioner/Appellant,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WEINGARTZ SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 9, 2015 9:00 a.m. v No. 317758 Oakland Circuit Court SALSCO INC, LC No. 2012-130602-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS *************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) From Durham ) MICHAEL IVER PETERSON )
NO. COA05-973 FOURTEENTH DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS *************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) From Durham ) MICHAEL IVER PETERSON ) ***************************************
1 of 1 DOCUMENT. LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL COCH and INFORMATION PATTERNS, LLC, Defendants. No.
NOTICE: 1 of 1 DOCUMENT LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL COCH and INFORMATION PATTERNS, LLC, Defendants. No. COA15-254 COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAWRENCE HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 21, 2001 V No. 219183 Wayne Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF LC No. 97-736025-NF AMERICA, and
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 March Appeal by defendant from order entered 18 March 2014 by Judge
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
DEBORAH FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, LLC, BUDGET SERVICES, INC., and FRANK S FLOOR CARE, Defendants NO. COA Filed: 6 September 2005
DEBORAH FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, LLC, BUDGET SERVICES, INC., and FRANK S FLOOR CARE, Defendants NO. COA04-1570 Filed: 6 September 2005 1. Appeal and Error--preservation of issues--failure to raise
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No IN RE: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ) SHELLEY. ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 36481 IN RE: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SHELLEY. -------------------------------------------------------- Idaho Falls, September 2010 ROGER STEELE,
v No Mackinac Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S FRED PAQUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION October 19, 2017 9:00 a.m. v No. 334350 Mackinac Circuit Court CITY OF ST. IGNACE, LC No. 2015-007789-CZ
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SUSSEX COUNTY James A. Luke, Judge. In these consolidated appeals from two separate
Present: All the Justices PAULINE BROWN v. Record No. 992751 WILLIAM BLACK, ET AL. ELAINE HUGHES OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. September 15, 2000 v. Record No. 992752 WILLIAM BLACK, ET AL. FROM
Court of Appeals. Slip Opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February Appeal by respondents from order entered 8 August 2013 by
NO. COA14-108 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED BY RALPH M. FOSTER AND SHYVONNE L. STEED-FOSTER DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 May 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-1040 Filed: 5 May 2015 Moore County, No. 13-CVS-1379 KAREN LARSEN, BENEFICIARY, MORGAN STANLEY as IRA CUSTODIAN f/b/o KAREN LARSEN, MARY JO STOUT, CHIARA
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 April 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-1381 Filed: 20 September 2016 Wake County, No. 15 CVS 4434 GILBERT BREEDLOVE and THOMAS HOLLAND, Plaintiffs v. MARION R. WARREN, in his official capacity
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
S15A1251. KEMP v. MONROE COUNTY. S15A1252. BIBB COUNTY v. MONROE COUNTY. This is the second time this case involving a long-running boundary line
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 2, 2015 S15A1251. KEMP v. MONROE COUNTY. S15A1252. BIBB COUNTY v. MONROE COUNTY. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. This is the second time this case involving a
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 October 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-131 Filed: 6 October 2015 Buncombe County, No. 14 CVS 2648 GAILLARD BELLOWS and her husband, JON BELLOWS, Plaintiffs, v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
City of Englewood, Colorado, a home rule city and a Colorado municipal corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
27331058 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Oct 1 2009 8:00AM Court of Appeals No. 08CA1505 Arapahoe County District Court No. 07CV1373 Honorable Cheryl L. Post, Judge Mike Mahaney, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 February 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNPUBLISHED July 29, 2014 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 314336 Ingham Circuit Court STREFLING OIL COMPANY, STREFLING LC No.
VIOLET SEABOLT OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 20, 2012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PRESENT: All the Justices VIOLET SEABOLT OPINION BY v. Record No. 110733 JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 20, 2012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Cheryl V. Higgins, Judge In
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 17 November GABRIEL COCH and INFORMATION PATTERNS, LLC, Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-254 Filed: 17 November 2015 Durham County, No. 12 CVS 3532 LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL COCH and INFORMATION PATTERNS,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2012-NMCA-068 Filing Date: June 4, 2012 Docket No. 30,691 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, KENNETH TRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS. v No Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RALPH DALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 27, 2007 v No. 265363 Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD LC No. 2004-005355-CZ and ZONING BOARD
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN CRAIG BURNETT, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 4, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
Current Circuit Splits
Current Circuit Splits The following pages contain brief summaries of circuit splits identified by federal court of appeals opinions announced between September 4, 2014 and February 18, 2015. This collection,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LISA GRAHOVAC, Personal Representative of the Estate of PAUL BRYAN GRAHOVAC, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 21, 2004 9:05 a.m. v No. 248352 Alger Circuit
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ORCHARD ESTATES OF TROY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER J. KOMASARA, and MARIA KOMASARA, UNPUBLISHED September 18, 2008 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 278514
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 15 November SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. and GIFT SURPLUS, LLC, Plaintiffs
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
Apr./May/June 2015 Volume XXXIV, Nos
Apr./May/June 2015 Volume XXXIV, Nos. 10-12 Eminent Domain; Pipeline; Easement; Phased Development Plan; Vested Right; Unity of Ownership Town of Midland v. Wayne, N.C. (No. 458PA13, 6/11/15) Holding In
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 July Appeal by defendants from order entered 17 September 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
: : : : Appellant : : v. : : DANA CORPORATION, : : Appellee : No EDA 2005
2008 PA Super 283 DONNA BEDNAR, ADMX. OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BEDNAR, AND WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DANA CORPORATION, Appellee No. 3503 EDA 2005 Appeal from
.. :P~TEFILED:?l~llf?
. ' Case 1:15-cv-08157-AKH Document 91 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 7,, USDC SONY..:!/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS G.C. TIMMIS & COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION August 24, 2001 9:05 a.m. v No. 210998 Oakland Circuit Court GUARDIAN ALARM COMPANY, LC No. 97-549069 Defendant-Appellant.