NCPI Workmark
Articles in regional publications that pertain to a wide range of North Carolina-related topics.

Search Results


40 results for "Lawrence, David M"
Currently viewing results 1 - 15
PAGE OF 3
Next
Record #:
22031
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin is an annotated catalog of exceptions and special rules that are judicially created for the benefit of counties, cities, and other types of local government entities.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 136, May 2014, p1-28, f
Full Text:
Record #:
20780
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin reviews North Carolina case law on using mandamus to require enforcement of local ordinances. A Writ of Mandamus, when issued, directs a public officer to perform a specific duty. It exists to relieve the frustration of persons who are entitled to have an officer take a specific action but face a persistent refusal by the officer top do so. The NC Supreme Court identified five elements necessary to a successful mandamus suit.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 132, Jul 2013, p1-19, f
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
20782
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin analyzes the free public services doctrine that denies recovery against a person or agency that commits a civil wrong, either intentionally or through negligence by a governmental agency that has incurred costs in remedying the public health or public safety hazards caused by the person or agencies' negligence.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 134, Aug 2013, p1-6, f
Full Text:
Record #:
18578
Author(s):
Abstract:
One statutory option a city or county has in enforcing its ordinances is to impose a civil penalty on a violator, and if necessary, sue for the penalty in a civil action in the nature of the debt. This article considers the question of whether the ordinance being enforced must set out an exact dollar amount for each penalty, to be sued for regardless of circumstances, or whether it may set out a dollar range for penalties and leave to an administrative official or board the decision as to the amount of the penalty in any individual instance.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
18579
Author(s):
Abstract:
Both cities and counties enjoy statutory authority to enforce their ordinances through civil penalties, which if necessary can be collected in a civil action in the nature of the debt. The North Carolina General Statues sets the upper limit of the fines or penalties for local ordinances enforced as misdemeanors or infractions, but there is no statutory maximum for civil penalties in general.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
19784
Author(s):
Abstract:
Several methods are available to cities and counties when enforcing their ordinances. Criminal enforcement is one, with the punishment usually being the payment of a fine. Another method is civil enforcement through an action in the nature of a debt, with the punishment being the payment of a penalty. This bulletin explores the differences that can result because a city or county decides to enforce a particular ordinance through one or the other method of enforcement.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 130, Dec 2012, p1-9, f
Full Text:
Record #:
16217
Author(s):
Abstract:
Normally someone who is not a party to a contract has no standing to enforce or challenge the validity of the contract, nor any right to seek damages for its breach. Occasionally, however, courts recognize and enforce nonparty rights in a contract, as third-party beneficiaries. This bulletin explores the application of third-party beneficiary rules to contracts entered into by local governments in North Carolina.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 126, Dec 2011, p1-14, f
Full Text:
Record #:
16205
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes the law of de facto officers in the state. It distinguishes between de jure officers and de facto officers, it sets out the variety of circumstances in which the courts have recognized have recognized a person as a de facto officer, and it discusses the circumstances in which the courts have found persons to be \"intruders,\" or \"usurpers,\" that is, persons whose actions are not valid.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 124, Oct 2010, p1-15, f
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
10006
Author(s):
Abstract:
Bulletin No. 114, August 2007 included coverage of legal issues that unrecorded utility easements raise for North Carolina cities. This bulletin responds to suggestions made by local government attorneys concerning this issue.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 115, Oct 2007, p1-5, f
Full Text:
Record #:
19883
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes legislation affecting community and economic development enacted by the 2004 session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Record #:
19882
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes legislation affecting community and economic development enacted by the 2003 session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Record #:
20582
Author(s):
Abstract:
ThisbBulletin discusses a Court of Appeals decision, August 6, 2002, Boney Publishers, Inc. v. Burlington City Council, which addresses the purchase of real property and the circumstances in which the name of the landowner, the location of the property, and the city's proposed use of the property are not material terms of a contract to acquire property. Consequently the local government is obliged to disclose those facts in open session.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 104, Oct 2002, p1-4, f
Full Text:
Record #:
20581
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin presents a broad review of questions that arise under the authorization for closed sessions, which has been the subject of four court of appeals decisions in recent years and undertakes a detailed consideration of the authorization, both to review the recent decisions and to discuss other aspects of the statutory language.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 103, Apr 2002, p1-12, f
Full Text:
Record #:
4580
Author(s):
Abstract:
In a February 2000 ruling, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that a public body may meet with its attorney in closed session even when there is no pending suit against the public body. It can meet to discuss any legitimate matter within the attorney-client privilege. Lawrence reviews the court's decision and suggests practical implications.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 93, Mar 2000, p1-4, f
Full Text:
Record #:
20577
Author(s):
Abstract:
In Multi-Media Publishing of North Carolina, Inc. v. Henderson County, decided on February 15, 2000, the NC Court of Appeals explored the contours of the open meetings law provision that allows a public body to hold a closed session to \"consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body.\"
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 93, Mar 2000, p1-4, f
Full Text: