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

Search Results


137 results for "Local Government Law Bulletin"
Currently viewing results 121 - 135
Previous
PAGE OF 10
Next
Record #:
28728
Abstract:
This bulletin examines the issue of when a public contract governed by North Carolina's competitive bidding requirements becomes binding on the governmental unit. Among the questions that could arise are the qualifications of the contractor, lost funding sources, and project redesign.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 53, Dec 1993, p1-6, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28729
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin addresses questions about when a local government can request or require social security numbers, and what happens when a citizen refuses to provide this number to the government. Federal statutes and general public records law in North Carolina are discussed.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 55, Mar 1994, p1-8, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28730
Author(s):
Abstract:
The 1985 case, Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, held that a government employer must give an employee who possesses a right in continued public employment a pretermination hearing. This bulletin discusses the case and explains its applicability to North Carolina local governments.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 56, Apr 1994, p1-7, f
Record #:
28731
Author(s):
Abstract:
On May 31, 1994, the United States Supreme Court decided a case involving the First Amendment free speech rights of public employees, Waters v. Churchill. This bulletin summarizes the Court’s decision and offers some observations on its likely impact on North Carolina local government employers.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 58, June 1994, p1-4, f
Record #:
28732
Abstract:
A central legal question in most lawsuits challenging flow control has been whether a flow-control ordinance, which directs solid waste generated within a local government’s boundaries, violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Implications to solid waste management in North Carolina are discussed.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 59, June 1994, p1-3, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28733
Abstract:
This bulletin reviews solid-waste management legislation enacted by the 1994 North Carolina General Assembly. There are amendments regarding zoning, landfills for on-site disposal of land clearing debris, and disposal fees for white goods.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 60, Aug 1994, p1-3, f
Record #:
28734
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes a United States Supreme Court decision that struck down a local ordinance that prohibited a resident of Ladue, Missouri, from displaying an antiwar sign in a window of her home. It discusses implications for North Carolina local governments wishing to regulate the display of signs on residential property.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 61, Aug 1994, p1-5, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28735
Abstract:
Many North Carolina cities have ordinances that require marchers to obtain a permit before holding a parade, and some of these cities charge a fee for the permit. This bulletin examines the constitutional limitations on charging fees to parade participants and organizers.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 62, Oct 1994, p1-10, f
Record #:
28736
Author(s):
Abstract:
The 1994 North Carolina General Assembly made changes to the open meetings law, including the definition of a public body, and authorizations to hold closed sessions. This bulletin discusses the changes and identifies some of the areas of uncertainty.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 64, Sept 1994, p1-8, f
Record #:
28737
Abstract:
Some North Carolina state and local public officials enjoy immunity from personal liability for tors committed in the course of fulfilling their public duties. The reasons for protecting public officials are often at tension with the public policy underlying other rules.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 67, Apr 1995, p1-8, f
Record #:
28738
Abstract:
The North Carolina General Assembly requires state and local government to cooperatively fund and manage service and regulatory programs in public health, social services, mental health, and other areas. There is dispute over which entity is held liable when a citizen is injured by the negligent act of a local government employee administering such a program.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 68, May 1995, p1-7, f
Record #:
28739
Abstract:
This bulletin examines statutes and case law from other jurisdictions in order to provide guidance to North Carolina public contracting officials who are faced with decisions about a withdrawn bid.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 69, July 1995, p1-10, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28740
Abstract:
This bulletin discusses three decisions of the courts of appeals regarding North Carolina local governments' attempts to control the disposal of solid waste by using measures crafted to avoid the discriminatory aspects of flow avoid the discriminatory aspects found invalid in that case.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 71, Nov 1995, p1-5, f
Full Text:
Record #:
28743
Abstract:
In Meyer v. Wall, the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified several rules of public liability relevant to citizen injuries caused by negligent acts of local governments administering programs cooperatively funded and managed by the state. This bulletin discusses those rules and the legal responsibility of local and state governments.
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 88, July 1998, p1-5, f
Record #:
28744
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin discusses public bodies holding closed sessions including the attorney-client privilege between the public body and its lawyer, and how the privilege does not apply to all conversations between attorneys and their clients. Attorney-client confidentiality is examined in a 2000 case, Multimedia Publishing of North Carolina v. Henderson County (Multimedia I).
Source:
Local Government Law Bulletin (NoCar KFN 7830 A15 L6), Vol. Issue 101, Feb 2002, p1-6, f