{
  "id": 8525962,
  "name": "MICHAEL DARWIN WHITE v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources",
  "decision_date": "1995-01-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 9310SC918",
  "first_page": "545",
  "last_page": "549",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 N.C. App. 545"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-35",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 S.E.2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526373
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "737"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 S.E.2d 300",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564256,
        8564233,
        8564290,
        8564187
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0107-03",
        "/nc/301/0107-02",
        "/nc/301/0107-04",
        "/nc/301/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ala. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5261754
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/264/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E.2d 547",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "573"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562647
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "427 S.E.2d 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "691-92"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2547848,
        2548041,
        2548241,
        2548471
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0466-02",
        "/nc/333/0466-01",
        "/nc/333/0466-04",
        "/nc/333/0466-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "424 S.E.2d 684",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "686"
        },
        {
          "page": "686"
        },
        {
          "page": "692"
        },
        {
          "page": "686"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525390
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "691"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/108/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 S.E.2d 712",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "714"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527622
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "740"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0737-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E.2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "541"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569880
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "410"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 S.E.2d 887",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "889-90"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526141
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "530"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/91/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 S.E.2d 342",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "344"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525947
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/91/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2539448,
        2545427,
        2542900
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0098-03",
        "/nc/328/0098-01",
        "/nc/328/0098-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 S.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "353"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527049
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "502"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/100/0498-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 469,
    "char_count": 7557,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4841626702639954e-07,
      "percentile": 0.807864667013405
    },
    "sha256": "55e53ae8e9b86730c95e554d49cfd59739123176d7f39b9f282c29cf4821334e",
    "simhash": "1:8628c62d54ad2c76",
    "word_count": 1207
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:41.091249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MICHAEL DARWIN WHITE v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCRODDEN, Judge.\nRelying on six assignments of error, DEHNR offers four arguments, only one of which we need to review: whether the court erred in determining that the Commission\u2019s order was arbitrary and capricious. We believe that the trial court erred, and we reverse.\nIn reviewing a trial court\u2019s consideration of an agency\u2019s final decision, our task is to determine whether the trial court properly applied the standard of review mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51 (1991). Walker v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 100 N.C. App. 498, 502, 397 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1990), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 98, 402 S.E.2d 430 (1991). That statute provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency\u2019s decision if:\n[T]he substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are [among other things]:\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51. The standard of review the trial court applies depends upon the issues presented. Brooks, Com\u2019r of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C. App. 459, 463, 372 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1988). When an appellant raises the question of whether the agency\u2019s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the appropriate review is the whole record test, which means an examination of all the competent evidence, including that which contradicts the agency\u2019s conclusion. Henderson v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 91 N.C. App. 527, 530, 372 S.E.2d 887, 889-90 (1988). In applying the whole record test, the court may not replace the agency\u2019s judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views of the evidence. Thompson v. Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977). Specifically, when a court is determining whether an agency\u2019s decision was arbitrary or capricious, it does not have the authority \u201cto override decisions within agency discretion when that discretion is exercised in good faith and in accordance with law.\u201d Lewis v. N. C. Dept. of Human Resources, 92 N.C. App. 737, 740, 375 S.E.2d 712, 714 (1989).\nThe standard of review of administrative decisions is the same in this Court as it is in superior court. Teague v. Western Carolina University, 108 N.C. App. 689, 691, 424 S.E.2d 684, 686, disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 466, 427 S.E.2d 627 (1993). We do not defer to the superior court\u2019s decision. Id. at 691-92, 424 S.E.2d at 686.\nThe arbitrary and capricious standard is a difficult one to meet. Id. at 692, 424 S.E.2d at 686. Agency actions have been found to be arbitrary and capricious when such actions are \u201c \u2018whimsical\u2019 because they indicate a lack of fair and careful consideration; when they fail to indicate \u2018any course of reasoning and the exercise of judgment.\u2019 \u201d Comr. of Insurance v. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 420, 269 S.E.2d 547, 573, (quoting Board of Education v. Phillips, 264 Ala. 603, 89 So.2d 96 (1956)), reh\u2019g denied, 301 N.C. 107, 273 S.E.2d 300 (1980).\nWe believe that the Commission\u2019s decision in this case did not lack fair and careful consideration. Respondent discharged petitioner for willful and repeated misuse of State funds. The evidence before the Commission showed that petitioner had charged a number of personal calls to the State Telephone Network credit card he had been issued. The card bore the inscription that \u201c[a]ny use of this card other than official State business is a violation of N.C. General Statutes.\u201d The Fall, 1989 North Carolina State Capitol Telephone Directory issued to State employees contained the following statement in bold print: \u201cAny use of the State Telephone Network for other than official State business is a violation of the tariffs filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Misuse of the system may result in appropriate penalties, including dismissal.\u201d The evidence also showed that petitioner gave incomplete or evasive answers when questioned about the calls. All in all, there was substantial evidence before the Commission to support its conclusion that petitioner had willfully and repeatedly misused State funds.\nIt is the Commission\u2019s prerogative to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the facts therefrom. Davis v. N.C. Dept of Human Resources, 110 N.C. App. 730, 737, 432 S.E.2d 132, 136 (1993). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Commission exercised its discretion other than in good faith and in accordance with the law. Hence, we find that the trial court erred in reversing the Commission.\nWe note petitioner\u2019s argument that the Commission\u2019s order was insufficiently specific and that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-35 (1993), which provides that permanent State employees may be discharged only for \u201cjust cause,\u201d is unconstitutionally vague. Petitioner, however, brought forward no cross-assignments of error as alternative grounds for the trial court\u2019s order. See N.C.R. App. P. 10. We decline to consider his arguments.\nIn conclusion, we find that the trial court erred in finding the Commission\u2019s order to be arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the trial court\u2019s order, and remand the case for entry of judgment in DEHNR\u2019s favor.\nReversed.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur.\nOpinion written and .concurred in prior to 16 December 1994.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCRODDEN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas Hilliard, III for petitioner-appellee.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for respondent-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MICHAEL DARWIN WHITE v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES\nNo. 9310SC918\n(Filed 3 January 1995)\nPublic Officers and Employees \u00a7 67 (NCI4th)\u2014 State employee dismissal for personal use of phone credit card \u2014 decision not arbitrary and capricious\nThe trial court erred in finding the State Personnel Commission\u2019s order that petitioner\u2019s dismissal had been for just cause was arbitrary and capricious, since respondent dismissed petitioner for wilful and repeated misuse of State funds; the evidence showed that petitioner had charged a number of personal calls to the State Telephone Network credit card he had been issued; petitioner had notice that the card was not for personal use; and petitioner gave incomplete or evasive answers when questioned about the calls.\nAm Jur 2d, Civil Service \u00a7 63.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 2 July 1993 by Judge Narley L. Cashwell in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 May 1994.\nHaving concluded that he had misused his State Telephone Network credit card, respondent, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), dismissed petitioner from his employment as a Level 1 Dentist on 26 July 1990, for reasons of personal conduct. On 9 May 1991, petitioner filed a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings to protest his dismissal. On 14 February 1992, Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr. filed his recommended decision that DEHNR\u2019s action be reversed and petitioner be reinstated with back pay and attorney\u2019s fees.\nOn 1 September 1992, the Full State Personnel Commission (the Commission) issued its decision and order declining to accept the recommended decision, finding that petitioner\u2019s dismissal had been for just cause and affirming the action of DEHNR. On 25 September 1992, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of the Commission\u2019s order in Wake County Superior Court. Following a hearing on 19 April 1993, the court entered an order on 28 June 1993, reversing the Commission\u2019s order. From this order, respondent DEHNR appeals.\nThomas Hilliard, III for petitioner-appellee.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for respondent-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0545-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 581
}