{ "id": 11917486, "name": "GERALDINE BALLARD, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for ROMIQUE INGRAM, and HELEN POTTER, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for BLAINE TRIVETT, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JERRY D. WEAST, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Guilford County Public Schools, and THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a corporation, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Ballard v. Weast", "decision_date": "1996-01-16", "docket_number": "No. COA94-1328", "first_page": "391", "last_page": "395", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "121 N.C. App. 391" } ], "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": "380 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483650, 2488397, 2482318, 2484176, 2481778 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0543-03", "/nc/324/0543-01", "/nc/324/0543-04", "/nc/324/0543-02", "/nc/324/0543-05" ] }, { "cite": "804 F.2d 838", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1662715 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/804/0838-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 S.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "quoting Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir. 1986)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527584 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723", "parenthetical": "quoting Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir. 1986)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12167895 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 L. Ed. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "442 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1531938, 1532133, 1531912, 1532170, 1532010, 1532202, 1532021, 1531990, 1532122, 1532092, 1531806 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/442/0929-02", "/us/442/0929-01", "/us/442/0929-10", "/us/442/0929-08", "/us/442/0929-11", "/us/442/0929-03", "/us/442/0929-04", "/us/442/0929-09", "/us/442/0929-05", "/us/442/0929-06", "/us/442/0929-07" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "912" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565310 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0109-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 485, "char_count": 9352, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.1263517706411986e-07, "percentile": 0.8609845593314513 }, "sha256": "5ca7f1f20e203ac585b0b83ea97491ebb739fa89907d6765bf3ee6b6a8d48d3c", "simhash": "1:d35465a39252ffa8", "word_count": 1508 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D. concur." ], "parties": [ "GERALDINE BALLARD, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for ROMIQUE INGRAM, and HELEN POTTER, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for BLAINE TRIVETT, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JERRY D. WEAST, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Guilford County Public Schools, and THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a corporation, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nIn this case, plaintiffs seek to challenge the school admissions policy of the Guilford County Schools.\nOn 19 April 1993, The Guilford County Board of Education adopted a policy (\u201cApril policy\u201d) which provides that the Guilford County Schools (\u201cSchools\u201d) will furnish a tuition free education to otherwise qualified students \u201cresiding\u201d in the school district. Under this policy, \u201cthe residence of students under 18 years of age is the permanent residence of the parents, legal guardian, or legal custodian as defined by the General Statutes of North Carolina.\u201d On 16 November 1993, The Guilford County Board of Education revised this policy by, inter alia, substituting the term \u201cdomiciled\u201d for \u201cresiding\u201d and by adding a provision that allows discretionary tuition free admission of non-domiciled students who demonstrate extraordinary financial hardship (\u201cNovember policy\u201d).. Under both versions of the policy, students 18 years of age or older may establish a residence (April policy) or domicile (November policy) independent of that of their parents, legal guardian, or legal custodian.\nIn the fall of 1993, two minors, Romique Ingram and Blaine Trivett, were denied tuition free admission to the Schools because they did not reside in Guilford County pursuant to the Schools\u2019 policy (April policy). On 6 September 1993 Romique moved from her home in Massachusetts, where her mother lived, and began living with her aunt, Geraldine Ballard. When she tried to enroll in Ferndale Middle School, she was denied admission unless her aunt, Ms. Ballard, obtained legal custody or legal guardianship, or unless she paid tuition. Sometime prior to 4 August 1994, Romique\u2019s mother moved from Massachusetts to Guilford County.\nOn 1 October 1993, Blaine Trivett moved out of his mother\u2019s home in Davidson County, North Carolina, and began living with his grandmother, Helen Potter, in High Point, North Carolina. On 4 October 1993, he tried to enroll in High Point Central High School in Guilford County but was denied admission because he did not reside in Guilford County pursuant to the Schools\u2019 admission policy (April policy). He was advised that he could not attend unless his grandmother was appointed as his legal custodian or legal guardian. 1\nOn 20 September 1993, Geraldine Ballard filed this action on behalf of her niece Romique Ingram. By amended complaint filed on 13 October 1993, Helen Potter, on behalf of her grandson Blaine Trivett, was added as a plaintiff. Pursuant to consent agreements executed by the parties, both Romique and Blaine were temporarily admitted to the Schools, without paying tuition, until the resolution of this case on its merits or until circumstances changed. Both plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment, and a hearing on these motions was held during the 9 September 1994 civil session of superior court. By orders entered 18 October 1994, Judge Peter M. McHugh denied plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.\nPlaintiffs assign error to the court\u2019s summary judgment ruling. They assert that the Schools\u2019 notice procedures and admissions policy violate their rights under our federal and state constitutions. Plaintiffs also contend that N.C.G.S. section 115C-366.1 does not permit schools to charge tuition to students who reside in the school district. They further assert that N.C.G.S. section 115C-366 should be construed to permit minors to rebut the presumption that their domicile is that of their parents, legal guardian, or legal custodian.\nDefendants contend that plaintiffs\u2019 claims are moot. We agree. The exclusion of moot questions in North Carolina state courts is a principle of judicial restraint. In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979). This principle applies as follows:\nWhenever, 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.\nId.\nRomique Ingram\u2019s claims are moot because she now resides (April policy) and is domiciled (November policy) in Guilford County in accord with the Schools\u2019 policy. Under the policy, Romique\u2019s residence (April policy) or domicile (November policy) is that of her mother. Her mother moved from Massachusetts to Guilford County after this suit was filed. Because of her mother\u2019s move, Romique now is entitled to attend Guilford County Schools without paying tuition.\nBecause he is no longer a minor, Blaine Trivett\u2019s claims are also moot. In his deposition he stated that his birthday was 6 October 1976. He turned eighteen (18) on 6 October 1994, twelve days before the summary judgment orders were entered in this case, and he is now 19 years old. Once a person turns eighteen, he is no longer a minor. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 48A-2 (1984). Under the November policy, a student who is eighteen or older may establish a domicile independent of his or her parents, legal guardian, or legal custodian. Thus, under this policy, Blaine is entitled to establish his domicile in Guilford County, regardless of where his parents live. He would be similarly entitled if the April policy were still in effect because that policy permitted students 18 years of age or older to establish a \u201cresidence\u201d independent of their parents, legal guardians, or legal custodians. Under either version of the policy, his claims are now moot.\nOf course, cases which are technically moot may be considered if they are \u201c \u2018capable of repetition yet evading review.\u2019 \u201d In re Jackson, 84 N.C. App. 167, 170-71, 352 S.E.2d 449, 452 (1987). Such cases are distinctive in that\n(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.\nCrumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1989) (quoting Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir. 1986)), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770-71 (1989).\nRomique\u2019s and Blaine\u2019s claims are not capable of repetition yet evading review. If Romique\u2019s mother had not moved to Massachusetts, her case would probably not be moot because of her age because she was only 14 when this action was filed. Thus, in cases like hers, the challenged action is not necessarily too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration. Further, her problem is not likely to recur because her mother has moved to Guilford County.\nThe fact that Blaine turned eighteen during the pendency of this action does not make his case capable of repetition yet evading review. A younger plaintiff would have had ample time to prosecute the action, including any appeals. Since he is no longer a minor, it is also not possible that Blaine will be subjected to the same action again.\nNot only are plaintiffs\u2019 claims moot now, but they were moot when the summary judgment orders were entered on 18 October 1994. Romique\u2019s claims were moot before the summary judgment hearing held during the 9 September 1994 session. The record shows that Romique\u2019s mother moved to Guilford County sometime before 4 August 1994, prior to the September 1994 summary judgment hearing. Blaine turned eighteen (18) on 6 October 1994, twelve days before the court\u2019s order was entered on 18 October 1994. Thus, at the time the summary judgment order was entered, the claims of both Romique and Blaine were moot and the cases should have been dismissed at that time.\nFor the reasons stated, the summary judgment order is vacated and the appeal is dismissed.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D. concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Central Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague and, Brenda F. Bergeron, for plaintiffs-appellants.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Richard T. Rice, and Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Jill R. Wilson, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GERALDINE BALLARD, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for ROMIQUE INGRAM, and HELEN POTTER, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem for BLAINE TRIVETT, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JERRY D. WEAST, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Guilford County Public Schools, and THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a corporation, Defendants\nNo. COA94-1328\n(Filed 16 January 1996)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 166 (NCI4th)\u2014 challenge to school admission policy \u2014 changes in residence and age \u2014 issues moot\nPlaintiffs\u2019 challenge to the school admission policy of the Guilford County Schools was moot where one child\u2019s mother moved to Guilford County while the action was pending and so the child became eligible to attend Guilford County schools, and the other child attained the age of eighteen while the suit was pending and so could establish domicile in Guilford County independent of the residence of his parents.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 640-645.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from orders entered 18 October 1994 by Judge Peter M. McHugh in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 October 1995.\nCentral Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague and, Brenda F. Bergeron, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Richard T. Rice, and Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Jill R. Wilson, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0391-01", "first_page_order": 425, "last_page_order": 429 }