Tollive v. Employment Security Commission

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Tollive v. Employment Security Commission

349 S.E.2d 650, 83 N.C. App. 240, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2685

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 4, 1986

DocketNo. 8610SC356

StatusPublished

This text of 349 S.E.2d 650 (Tollive v. Employment Security Commission) 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

Tollive v. Employment Security Commission, 349 S.E.2d 650, 83 N.C. App. 240, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2685 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORR, Judge.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-43 (1981) provides that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to the State Personnel System and hearing and appeal matters before the Commission. Under the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, section 150A-51 governs scope of review. This statute in pertinent part reads:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings-, or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(4) Affected by other error of law; or

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150A-29(a) or G.S. 150A-30 in view of the entire record submitted; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 150A-51 (1983) (Although Chapter 150A has been rewritten and recodified, 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws, c. 746, s. 19 pro[242]*242vides that the act shall not affect contested cases commenced before 1 January 1986.).

In the case at bar the superior court did find that Mr. Tolli-ver’s rights may have been prejudiced by agency findings, conclusions, and decisions made upon unlawful procedure, affected by error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, and that were arbitrary or capricious. The court supported its conclusion with a list of eleven findings of procedural and substantive error. After thorough review of the record, we conclude that the agency’s finding was properly reversed and remanded for rehearing in accordance with the statute.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Arnold concur.

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

ORR, Judge.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-43 (1981) provides that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to the State Personnel System and hearing and appeal matters before the Commission. Under the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, section 150A-51 governs scope of review. This statute in pertinent part reads:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings-, or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(4) Affected by other error of law; or

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150A-29(a) or G.S. 150A-30 in view of the entire record submitted; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 150A-51 (1983) (Although Chapter 150A has been rewritten and recodified, 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws, c. 746, s. 19 pro[242]*242vides that the act shall not affect contested cases commenced before 1 January 1986.).

In the case at bar the superior court did find that Mr. Tolli-ver’s rights may have been prejudiced by agency findings, conclusions, and decisions made upon unlawful procedure, affected by error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, and that were arbitrary or capricious. The court supported its conclusion with a list of eleven findings of procedural and substantive error. After thorough review of the record, we conclude that the agency’s finding was properly reversed and remanded for rehearing in accordance with the statute.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 S.E.2d 650, 83 N.C. App. 240, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tollive-v-employment-security-commission-ncctapp-1986.