By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 22,2013
Richmond County Board of Education v. Cowell Sovereign immunity does not bar a school board’s challenge – brought under N.C. Const. art. IX, § 7 – to a 2011 statutory amendment, which requires that $50 be sent to the Department of Public Safety whenever someone is convicted of an improper equipment offense.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 27,2012
J.W. v. Johnston County Board of Education Since no N.C. appellate court has recognized a fiduciary duty between a middle school student and his principal, superintendent or school board, this court will not so expand N.C. law.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 26,2012
Thompson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education After plaintiff’s return from California and her completion of a one-year teaching contract, the defendant-school board should have voted on tenure status for plaintiff, who had career status as a teacher before she moved to California.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 25,2012
Thompson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education After plaintiff’s return from California and her completion of a one-year teaching contract, the defendant-school board should have voted on tenure status for plaintiff, who had career status as a teacher before she moved to California.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 22,2012
Doe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Where constitutional claims rest solely on negligence allegations, a school board can rightly claim sovereign immunity. North Carolina public school students do not have a constitutional right to recover damages from local boards of education for injuries sustained as the result of a negligent failure to remain aware of and supervise the conduct of public school employees.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 22,2012
Hoke County Board of Education v. State Where the state chose a pre-kindergarten program, “More at Four” (MAF) to address the problems recognized in Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997) (Leandro I), and Hoke County Board of Education v. State, 358 N.C. 605, 599 S.E.2d 365 (2004) (Leandro II), the trial court had the authority to bar the General Assembly’s attempt to arbitrarily limit the number of at-risk children who could participate in MAF.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 30,2012
B.W. v. Durham Public Schools Despite the respondent-school system’s declaration that it would not consider staffing issues in developing the petitioner-student’s individualized education plan (IEP), staffing issues were fully discussed at the IEP meeting. The school system decided against a full-time one-on-one aide for the time being while leaving open the possibility of more one-on-one time if the student’s progress was not good.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 24,2012
Johnson v. Avery County Board of Education Plaintiff argues that the defendant-school board waived its sovereign immunity, but the only basis for plaintiff’s argument is the board’s participation in the N.C. School Boards Trust. We have held that participation in the Trust does not operate to waive a school board’s right to assert sovereign immunity.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 9,2012
Moss v. Spartanburg County School Dist. Seven A high-school student and her parents lose their First Amendment Establishment Clause challenge to a Spartanburg County public school system’s policy of allowing public school students two academic credits for off-campus religious instruction offered by private instructors; the 4th Circuit upholds the program as comparable to allowing credit from private school instruction.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 11,2012
Butler v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education A school board renewed a principal’s contract before it received the reviews and scores from her first contract term. The contract renewal was not a waiver of the board’s right to fire the principal based on her performance during her first contract term.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
