Goldston v. State Of North Carolina

Decision Date08 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. 443A09.,443A09.
CitationGoldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (N.C. 2010)
PartiesW.D. GOLDSTON, Jr., James E. Harrington, and citizens, taxpayers, and bondholders similarly situated v. STATE of North Carolina and Michael F. Easley, Governor, individually and in his official capacity.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, --- N.C.App. ----, 683 S.E.2d 237(2009), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment and order entered 27 March 2008 by Judge Joseph R. John, Sr., in Superior Court, Wake County.Heard in the Supreme Court 7 September 2010.

Boyce & Isley, PLLC, by G. Eugene Boyce and R. Daniel Boyce; and North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, by Robert F. Orr and Jeanette K. Doran, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellees.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, John F. Maddrey, Assistant Solicitor General, and Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, for defendant-appellants.

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. Raleigh, for James E. Holshouser, Jr., James B. Hunt, Jr., James G. Martin, Willis P. Whichard, John L. Sanders, and Marvin Dorman, amici curiae.

Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A., by E. Hardy Lewis, Raleigh, for Joe Hackney, Harold J. Brubaker, Hugh Holliman, Paul Stam, Marc Basnight, Dan Blue, Daniel G. Clodfelter, Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr., and National Conference of State Legislatures, amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value.See, e.g.,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • State v. Todd
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 2016
    ...which might have been decided but were not.” Goldston v. State , 199 N.C.App. 618, 624, 683 S.E.2d 237, 242 (2009), aff'd , 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010). See also Goetz v. N. Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 203 N.C.App. 421, 432, 692 S.E.2d 395, 402–03 (2010) (“The law of t......
  • Wetherington v. NC Dep't of Pub. Safety
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2020
    ...original) (quoting Hayes v. Wilmington , 243 N.C. 525, 536, 91 S.E.2d 673, 682 (1956) ), aff'd by an equally divided court , 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010).In his Petition for a Contested Case Hearing filed after Col. Grey issued his determination on remand, Petitioner argued, "The law......
  • Stark v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2013
    ...applies ... to issues that were decided in the former proceeding, whether explicitly or by necessary implication[.]”), aff'd,364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010). Thus, whether the trial court's denial of the motion for a JNOV is properly before us, our Supreme Court's holding that the trial......
  • State v. Craven
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2013
    ... 744 S.E.2d 458 STATE of North Carolina v. Marcus Arnell CRAVEN. No. 322PA10. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 27, 2013 ... See, e.g., Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010) (per curiam). Nevertheless, the remedy ordered by ... ...
  • Get Started for Free