Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the trial court holding that the City of Asheville improperly denied an application for the issuance of a conditional use permit submitted by PHG Asheville, LLC seeking authorization to construct a hotel in downtown Asheville, holding that the City lacked the authority to deny the requested conditional use permit.The trial court determined that PHG was entitled to the issuance of the requested conditional use permit because the City had improperly concluded that PHG failed to present competent, material, and substantial evidence tending to show that the proposed hotel satisfied the standards of a conditional use permit set out in the City's unified development ordinance. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that PHG presented competent, material, and substantial evidence that the proposed hotel satisfied the relevant conditional use permit standards set out in the City's unified development ordinance. View "PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law

In this dispute concerning the manner in which the cost of pensions for certain retirees should be funded, the Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) rulemaking procedures bind how the Retirement System's Board of Trustees adopt "cap factors" under the anti-pension spiking provision at issue in this case.In order to calculate the retirement benefit cap applicable to each retiree, the Act to Enact Anti-Pension-Spiking Legislation by Establishing a Contribution-Based Benefit Cap directs the Retirement System's Board of Trustees to adopt a contribution-based benefit cap factor recommended by an actuary, which the Board had traditionally adopted by resolution. Here, the Retirement System determined that Dr. Barry Shepherd's pension benefits were subject the contribution-based benefit cap. The trial court concluded that the Board of Trustees' adoption of the cap factor was void because the action was subject to rulemaking under the APA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board of Trustees was required to adopt the statutorily mandated cap factor utilizing the rulemaking procedures required by the APA; and (2) the Retirement System erred by billing the Board of Education an additional amount relating to Dr. Shepherd's pension, in light of the Board of Trustees' failure to adopt the necessary cap factor in an appropriate manner. View "Cabarrus County Board of Education v. Department of State Treasurer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's summary judgment for the Town of Pinebluff, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Session Law 1999-35 required Moore County to approve Pinebluff's expansion request.Session Law 1999-35 amended North Carolina's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-360, as it pertained to Pinebluff. After Pinebluff annexed land extending beyond the town's corporate boundaries, Pinebluff requested that the Moore County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution to authorize the expansion of Pinebluff's ETJ two miles beyond the annexed boundary, pursuant to section 160A-360. The Board denied the request. Pinebluff filed a complaint against Moore County seeking a writ of mandamus. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pinebluff and directed Moore County to adopt a resolution authorizing Pinebluff to exercise its ETJ within the proposed area. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there is no irreconcilable conflict between subsections (e) and (f) of section 160A-360, as modified by Session Law 1999-35, and that subsection (e) prohibits Pinebluff from extending its ETJ into the requested areas within an agreement between Pinebluff and Moore County. View "Town of Pinebluff v. Moore County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five minor children, holding that the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3).The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from her care, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care while they were in the custody of the Department of Social Services (DSS), and dependency. The court further concluded that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care while they were in DSS custody. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

In this tax dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the final decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) entering summary judgment in favor of Graybar Electric Company, Inc., holding that dividends deducted on a corporation's federal corporate income tax return under the dividends-received deduction (DRD) of section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code do constitute "income not taxable" for purposes of calculating the corporation's net economic loss (NEL) deduction under N.C. Gen. Stat. 105-130.8(a) for North Carolina corporate income tax purposes.The Department found that the dividends received constituted "income not taxable" and that, therefore, Graybar was required to reduce its NEL deductions by the amount of the dividends apportioned to North Carolina. On appeal, (OAH) entered summary judgment for Graybar, holding that the dividends were taxable as a matter of law and were not "income not taxable." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the dividends deducted pursuant too I.R.C. 243(a)(3) were "income not taxable" under section 105-130.8(a)(3); and (2) therefore, Graybar failed to bring itself within the statutory provisions authorizing the NEL deduction calculation it sought. View "North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Graybar Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals ruling that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether its previous order was being violated by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the grounds that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before moving to enforce the court’s order, holding that the superior court had jurisdiction to enforce its previous order.On March 17, 2016, the superior court reversed a final decision of the DHHS regarding Petitioner’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking entry of an order enforcing the March 17, 2016 order and directing the DHHS to immediately reinstate his Medicaid benefits. The superior court dismissed the petition, concluding that the DHHS had not violated the previous order. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s petition. View "Pachas v. N.C. Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the order of the superior court reversing the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which declined to award certain attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s attorneys, holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-90(c) authorizes the superior court to consider additional evidence and exercise its discretion in reviewing the reasonableness or setting the amount of attorney’s fees.In reversing the Commission, the superior court ordered attorney’s fees to be paid to Plaintiff’s attorneys from the reimbursement for retroactive attendant care medical compensation that the Commission had awarded to Plaintiff. The court of appeals vacated the order, holding that the superior court exceeded the scope of its statutory authority to review the reasonableness of a Commission’s fee award under section 97-90(c) by taking and considering new evidence that was not presented before the Commission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals’ decision was inconsistent with section 97-90(c) and that the superior court had jurisdiction to take and consider additional evidence not previously considered by the Commission. View "Saunders v. ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment of the Business Court that upheld the declaratory ruling issued by the North Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B-4 determining that dry needling constitutes physical therapy, holding that the Physical Therapy Board’s decision was consistent with its enabling statutes and administrative rules.This case arose from a nearly decade-long debate over whether dry needling is confined to the practice of acupuncture. The Physical Therapy Board concluded that dry needling falls within the practice of physical therapy and issued a declaratory ruling reaffirming its conclusion that dry needling constitutes physical therapy. The Acupuncture Board appealed the ruling, and the Business Court affirmed. On appeal, the Acupuncture Board argued that dry needling is part of the practice of acupuncture rather the physical therapy. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Physical Therapy Board did not err in determining that dry needling is within the scope of physical therapy. View "N.C. Acupuncture Licensing Board v. N.C. Board of Physical Therapy Examiners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission awarding Plaintiff ongoing disability compensation and medical compensation for her medical conditions and remanded this case for further proceedings before the Commission, holding that it could not be determined from the record if the Commission, as the Court of Appeals concluded, made findings of causation independent of the application of any presumption.In affirming the Commission’s award of benefits, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Commission made adequate findings that Plaintiff met her burden of proving causation with a presumption of causation and therefore had an alternative factual basis for its award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to remand this case to the Commission for additional findings and conclusions because the Court could not determine from the record the extent to which the Commission relied on a presumption of causation or whether it had an independent, alternate basis for its determination of causation. View "Pine v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

The General Assembly lawfully delegated authority to the Rules Review Commission (Commission) to review and approve rules adopted by the State Board of Education (Board).The Board sought a declaratory ruling that the laws requiring the Board to submit its proposed rules and regulations to the statutorily created committee for review were unconstitutional. The trial court allowed summary judgment for the Board. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that N.C. Const. art. IX, 5 authorizes the General Assembly to statutorily delegate authority to the Commission to review and approve administrative rules that are proposed by the Board for codification. View "North Carolina State Board of Education v. State" on Justia Law