Markham v. Swails
| Decision Date | 21 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7510SC811,7510SC811 |
| Citation | 29 N.C.App. 205,223 S.E.2d 920 |
| Parties | Charles B. MARKHAM v. James B. SWAILS, Chairman, et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Jordan, Morris & Hoke by John R. Jordan, Jr., Raleigh, for petitioner-appellant.
Young, Moore & Henderson by Charles H. Young and R. Michael Strickland, Raleigh, for respondents-appellees.
Petitioner assigns as error the order dated 27 June 1975 denying his 'motion to have the court amend its findings, make additional findings or amend its decision and order'. G.S. 143--307 and 143--309 (now G.S. 150A--43 and 150A--45, effective 1 February 1976) provide that an aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of a final decision of an administrative board by petitioning for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Wake County.
G.S. 143--314 (now G.S. 150A--50, effective 1 February 1976) provides:
Review by court without jury on the record.--The review of administrative decisions under this Chapter shall be conducted by the court without a jury. The court shall hear oral arguments and receive written briefs, but shall take no evidence not offered at the hearing; except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, testimony thereon may be taken by the court; and except that where no record was made of the administrative proceeding or the record is inadequate, the judge in his discretion may hear the matter de novo.
G.S. 143--315 (now G.S. 150A--51, effective 1 February 1976) provides:
Scope of review; power of court in disposing of case.--The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
(4) Affected by other error of law; or
(5) Unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious.
If the court reverses or modifies the decision of the agency, the judge shall set out in writing, which writing shall become a part of the record, the reasons for such reversal or modification.
G.S. 1A--1, Rule 52(a)(1) provides:
Rule 52. Findings by the court.
(a) Findings.
(1) In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.
Petitioner's motion to amend the judgment specifies that it was made pursuant to Rule 52(b) which provides:
(b) Amendment. Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.
When the judge of the superior court sits as an appellate court to review the decision of an administrative agency pursuant to G.S. 143--314 and 315, the judge is not required to make findings of fact and enter a judgment thereon in the same sense as a Trial judge pursuant to Rule 52(a) and (b). Indeed, pursuant to G.S. 143--315, the authority of the judge is limited to affirming, modifying, reversing or remanding the decision of the administrative agency. In our opinion, Rule 52(b) has no application in this proceeding, and Judge McKinnon was not required to entertain a motion made pursuant thereto. However, we treat the order of 27 June 1975 denying the motion as an order of dismissal and affirm it.
Petitioner assigns as error the order dated 20 March 1975 affirming the decision of the Board of Law Examiners. G.S. 143--316 (now G.S. 150A--52,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Bankers Ass'n v. Iowa Credit Union Dept.
...Ga.App. 200, 201, 198 S.E.2d 890, 891 (1973), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 231 Ga. 594, 203 S.E.2d 206 (1974); Markham v. Swails, 29 N.C.App. 205, 208, 223 S.E.2d 920, 922, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 290 N.C. 309, 225 S.E.2d 829, cert. denied, 290 N.C. 551, 226 S.E.2d 510, cert. de......
-
Garrison v. Blakeney
...220 S.E.2d 595 (1975); Wall v. Wall, 24 N.C.App. 725, 212 S.E.2d 238, Cert. denied 287 N.C. 264, 214 S.E.2d 437 (1975); Markham v. Swails, 29 N.C.App. 205, 223 S.E.2d 920, Cert. denied 290 N.C. 309, 225 S.E.2d 829; 290 N.C. 551, 226 S.E.2d 510; 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed.2d 310 (19......
-
Early v. County of Durham, Dss
...Carswell v. Hendersonville Country Club, Inc., 169 N.C.App. 227, 231, 609 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2005); see also Markham v. Swails, 29 N.C.App. 205, 208, 223 S.E.2d 920, 922 (1976), review denied, 290 N.C. 309, 225 S.E.2d 829 Here, the superior court, in its order entered 13 July 2007, found that......
-
Thompson v. Union Cnty.
...v. Consolidated Judicial Retirement System , 89 N.C. App. 560, 562, 366 S.E.2d 604, 605 (1988) (citing Markham v. Swails , 29 N.C. App. 205, 208, 223 S.E.2d 920, 922 (1976) (discussing the application of Rule 52 to a trial court's appellate review of agency decisions in accordance with Nort......