Cumberland County Board of Education v. Cumberland County Board of Commissioners

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Cumberland County Board of Education v. Cumberland County Board of Commissioners

438 S.E.2d 424, 113 N.C. App. 164, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1321

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 21, 1993

DocketNo. 9212SC1171

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 438 S.E.2d 424 (Cumberland County Board of Education v. Cumberland County Board of Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cumberland County Board of Education v. Cumberland County Board of Commissioners, 438 S.E.2d 424, 113 N.C. App. 164, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1321 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

The parties have presented several issues for our review. This matter is moot, however, and we cannot address the issues before [167]*167us. Generally, a court will not decide a moot case and state court mootness doctrine “represents a form of judicial restraint.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, Peoples v. Judicial Standards Commission of North Carolina, 442 U.S. 929 (1979). Our Supreme Court has stated that

[wjhenever, during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law.

... If the issues before a court or administrative body become moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response should be to dismiss the action.

Id. at 147-148, 250 S.E.2d at 912 (citations omitted). An exception to this doctrine exists, however, when the matter is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989). We do not believe the exception is applicable in this case.

We recognize that our decision effectively blocks almost all appeals to this Court under G.S. § 115C-431 and that any appeal of a disputed budget for a particular year will likely be moot by the time it reaches this Court. The budgetary process requires the harmonious cooperation of both entities each year to provide for the financial well-being of Cumberland County schools. Protracted litigation will only impede this process. Solutions which provide a reasonable and practical dispute resolution method must be developed. The current procedure is unworkable and impractical. A procedure which provides for an expedited review of budget disputes and which terminates on a local level, without entangling the cumbersome machinery of the appellate courts, would be preferable. Our General Assembly, however, is the only body capable of providing these solutions.

For the reasons set forth above, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges WELLS and JOHNSON concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

The parties have presented several issues for our review. This matter is moot, however, and we cannot address the issues before [167]*167us. Generally, a court will not decide a moot case and state court mootness doctrine “represents a form of judicial restraint.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, Peoples v. Judicial Standards Commission of North Carolina, 442 U.S. 929 (1979). Our Supreme Court has stated that

[wjhenever, during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law.

... If the issues before a court or administrative body become moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response should be to dismiss the action.

Id. at 147-148, 250 S.E.2d at 912 (citations omitted). An exception to this doctrine exists, however, when the matter is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989). We do not believe the exception is applicable in this case.

We recognize that our decision effectively blocks almost all appeals to this Court under G.S. § 115C-431 and that any appeal of a disputed budget for a particular year will likely be moot by the time it reaches this Court. The budgetary process requires the harmonious cooperation of both entities each year to provide for the financial well-being of Cumberland County schools. Protracted litigation will only impede this process. Solutions which provide a reasonable and practical dispute resolution method must be developed. The current procedure is unworkable and impractical. A procedure which provides for an expedited review of budget disputes and which terminates on a local level, without entangling the cumbersome machinery of the appellate courts, would be preferable. Our General Assembly, however, is the only body capable of providing these solutions.

For the reasons set forth above, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges WELLS and JOHNSON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 S.E.2d 424, 113 N.C. App. 164, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumberland-county-board-of-education-v-cumberland-county-board-of-ncctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack