N.C. Supreme Court Opinions for January 29, 2016

The North Carolina Supreme Court released a batch of opinions today:

Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., (557PA13) Wreck allegedly caused by negligence of driver of school activity bus; whether school activity buses are covered by the State Tort Claims Act under N.C.G.S. § 143-300.1.
State v. Williams, (333PA14) Whether an indictment charging a registered sex offender with failing to timely register a change of address was fatally defective regarding the timeframe in which he was required to report the address change.
Young v. Bailey, (355PA14-2) Action against county sheriff for wrongful discharge based on political considerations; whether sheriff’s department employees are ‘county employees’ entitled to protection under N.C.G.S. § 153A-99; whether plaintiff’s dismissal violated her rights under the federal or state constitutions; whether summary judgment should have been granted for the sheriff.
State ex rel. McCrory v. Berger, (113A15) Appeal from the decision of a three-judge superior court panel sustaining a facial challenge to portions of the Energy Modernization Act and the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014; whether legislative appointment provisions in the Acts violate the appointments clause or the separation of powers clause of the state constitution.
McLaughlin v. Bailey, (163A15) Action against county sheriff for wrongful discharge based on political considerations; whether sheriff’s department employees are ‘county employees’ entitled to protection under N.C.G.S. § 153A-99; whether plaintiffs’ dismissal violated their rights under the federal or state constitutions; whether summary judgment should have been granted for the sheriff on all claims.
Lloyd v. Bailey, (181PA15) Action against county sheriff for wrongful discharge based on political considerations; whether sheriff’s department employees are ‘county employees’ entitled to protection under N.C.G.S. § 153A-99; whether plaintiff’s dismissal violated his rights under the federal or state constitutions; whether summary judgment should have been granted for the sheriff.

I’ll have more on the three Bailey decisions soon.