{
  "id": 11919930,
  "name": "HARRY L. KING Plaintiff-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, T.W. ANDERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, FRANK W. ARRANT, JR., Individually and in his official capacity as District Supervisor, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, and W.M. NICHOLS, Individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant, Division of Motor Vehicles, N.C. Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "King v. North Carolina Department of Transportation",
  "decision_date": "1996-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-226",
  "first_page": "706",
  "last_page": "711",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 706"
    }
  ],
  "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": "54 ALR Fed. 214",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. Fed.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E.2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "918",
          "parenthetical": "Administrative agencies must find facts and reach conclusions on the \"factual issues [] presented\" by the parties"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566826
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "56",
          "parenthetical": "Administrative agencies must find facts and reach conclusions on the \"factual issues [] presented\" by the parties"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 S.E.2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where defendant asserts affirmative defense, it must ensure record contains all facts necessary for review"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565902,
        8565936,
        8565872,
        8565975,
        8565848
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where defendant asserts affirmative defense, it must ensure record contains all facts necessary for review"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0590-03",
        "/nc/285/0590-04",
        "/nc/285/0590-02",
        "/nc/285/0590-05",
        "/nc/285/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E.2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "234",
          "parenthetical": "where defendant asserts affirmative defense, it must ensure record contains all facts necessary for review"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555796
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315",
          "parenthetical": "where defendant asserts affirmative defense, it must ensure record contains all facts necessary for review"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 S.E.2d 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "568",
          "parenthetical": "this Court can only \"judicially know what appears of record\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523807
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "477-478",
          "parenthetical": "this Court can only \"judicially know what appears of record\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/81/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 S.E.2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2508018
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 S.E.2d 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "689"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N.C. App. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522542
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "273"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/105/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "424 S.E.2d 908",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2545635,
        2549095,
        2549899,
        2550188,
        2544702
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0166-03",
        "/nc/333/0166-05",
        "/nc/333/0166-04",
        "/nc/333/0166-02",
        "/nc/333/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "424 S.E.2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2506333,
        2507173,
        2503850,
        2507959,
        2506621
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0665-02",
        "/nc/332/0665-05",
        "/nc/332/0665-03",
        "/nc/332/0665-04",
        "/nc/332/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 579",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "583-584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307658
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "612-613"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 F.3d 89",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        10507887
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "94-95"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/3/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-35",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E.2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292-293"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566728
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "87-88"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.E.2d 916",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610885,
        8610749
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0123-02",
        "/nc/242/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "181"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609041
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "674"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 S.E.2d 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5306882,
        5305574,
        5306867,
        5305014,
        5308249
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0596-05",
        "/nc/326/0596-03",
        "/nc/326/0596-01",
        "/nc/326/0596-02",
        "/nc/326/0596-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E.2d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "806"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561845
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 582",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "583-584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521631
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "452-453"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E.2d 552",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556"
        },
        {
          "page": "557"
        },
        {
          "page": "557"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4736107
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        },
        {
          "page": "429"
        },
        {
          "page": "428"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 S.E.2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "627"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.C. App. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527480
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "201"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/101/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 S.E.2d 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4720323,
        4717258,
        4716211,
        4713916,
        4714813
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0390-04",
        "/nc/315/0390-02",
        "/nc/315/0390-03",
        "/nc/315/0390-05",
        "/nc/315/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 S.E.2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "510"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527531
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "498"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "440 S.E.2d 111",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "114"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523236
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "510"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 S.E.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2505409,
        2504968,
        2504747,
        2505141,
        2504699
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0345-01",
        "/nc/332/0345-02",
        "/nc/332/0345-05",
        "/nc/332/0345-04",
        "/nc/332/0345-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "743",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169853
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "301",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "285"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N.C App. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314074
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "510-511"
        },
        {
          "page": "512"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/106/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 S.E.2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779554,
        4776469
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0715-01",
        "/nc/317/0715-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 S.E.2d 188",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "191"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.C. App. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523953
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "385"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/80/0383-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "weight": 4,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 774,
    "char_count": 14151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3215389193538233e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7900622777621398
    },
    "sha256": "29580987f6af502da326fb4fdb7397a5ae2b6696b02520f8e2e8fd01043e7f00",
    "simhash": "1:1b415962a5a90d56",
    "word_count": 2241
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HARRY L. KING Plaintiff-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, T.W. ANDERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, FRANK W. ARRANT, JR., Individually and in his official capacity as District Supervisor, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, and W.M. NICHOLS, Individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant, Division of Motor Vehicles, N.C. Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellees"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge.\nPlaintiff Harry King (King) appeals from grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles (NCDOT) and defendants T.W. Anders (Anders), Frank W. Arrant, Jr. (Arrant), and W.M. Nichols (Nichols), individually and in their official capacity.\nOn 18 April 1991 King was dismissed from his position with NCDOT. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126, et seq., King filed a contested case hearing (Case I). Administrative Law Judge Michael R. Morgan conducted an evidentiary hearing and, on 13 July 1992, issued a recommended decision concluding the dismissal was for \u201cjust cause.\u201d On 18 February 1993 the State Personnel Commission (SPC) adopted Judge Morgan\u2019s finding of \u201cjust cause.\u201d King appealed to the Wake County Superior Court, which affirmed the SPC\u2019s finding of \u201cjust cause.\u201d King prosecuted no further appeals in Case I.\nOn 25 August 1993 King filed another action (Case II) alleging wrongful discharge under federal anti-discrimination statutes and state tort theories. On 6 October 1994 the trial court, pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), dismissed the majority of King\u2019s claims. On 10 November 1994 the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on King\u2019s remaining claims.\nOn appeal, King contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his: (1) civil conspiracy and tortious interference with economic relations claims because genuine issues of material fact exist; and (2) Title VII and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 claims as those claims were not precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel.\nAt the outset we note a trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment is fully reviewable by this Court because the trial court rules only on questions of law. Va. Electric and Power Co. v. Tillett, 80 N.C. App. 383, 385, 343 S.E.2d 188, 191, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 715, 347 S.E.2d 457 (1986).\nI.\nWe first consider King\u2019s allegation a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding his civil conspiracy claim.\nTo recover damages resulting from a civil conspiracy, King must prove: (1) there was \u201can agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way\u201d; and (2) \u201cas a result of acts done in furtherance of, and pursuant to, the agreement\u201d he suffered damage. Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C App. 496, 510-511, 418 S.E.2d 276, 285 (quoting Fox v. Wilson, 85 N.C. App. 292, 301, 354 S.E.2d 737, 743 (1987) (citations omitted)), disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 348 (1992). o\nIt is well settled that an allegation, without any supporting facts, is insufficient to withstand summary judgment. Friel v. Angell Care Inc., 113 N.C. App. 505, 510, 440 S.E.2d 111, 114 (1994). Put simply, \u201c[a] party cannot prevail against a motion for summary judgment by relying on \u2018conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Campbell v. Board of Education of Catawba Co., 76 N.C. App. 495, 498, 333 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1985), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 390, 338 S.E.2d 878 (1986)).\nWe believe, after carefully reviewing the present record, that King presented no more than mere speculation an agreement existed between any two of the defendants to do an unlawful act. Therefore, we find King failed to proffer sufficient evidence an agreement existed between any two defendants and, accordingly, affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment on King\u2019s civil conspiracy claim.\nII.\nWe next consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on King\u2019s tortious interference with economic relations, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 claims.\nA defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if it can establish \u201cplaintiff cannot overcome an affirmative defense or legal bar to a claim.\u201d Wilder v. Hobson, 101 N.C. App. 199, 201, 398 S.E.2d 625, 627 (1990). The companion doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion \u2014 legal bars to a claim \u2014 were \u201cdeveloped by the courts ... to serve the present-day dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating previously decided matters and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.\u201d Thomas M. McInnis & Assoc., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 427, 349 S.E.2d 552, 556 (1986).\nClaim preclusion forecloses subsequent prosecution of an entire cause of action if, (1) a previous suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (2) the present suit involves the same cause of action, and is (3) between the same parties or those in privity with them. Thomas M. McInnis, 318 N.C. at 429, 349 S.E.2d at 557.\nIssue preclusion, on the other hand, operates to bar re-litigation of a single issue within a cause of action where the following requirements are met:\n(1) The issues to be concluded must be the same as those involved in the prior action; (2) in the prior action, the issues must have been raised and actually litigated; (3) the issues must have been material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action; and (4) the determination made of those issues in the prior action must have been necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.\nJohnson v. Smith, 97 N.C. App. 450, 452-453, 388 S.E.2d 582, 583-584 (quoting King v. Grindstaff, 284 N.C. 348, 358, 200 S.E.2d 799, 806 (1973)), disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 596, 393 S.E.2d 878 (1990).\nA.\nWe now consider whether the doctrine of issue preclusion bars King from prosecuting his tortious interference with contract claim.\nThe five elements of the prima facie case for tortious interference with contract are:\nFirst, that a valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third person, conferring upon the plaintiff some contractual right against the third person. Second, that the outsider had knowledge of the plaintiffs contract with the third person. Third, that the outsider intentionally induced the third person not to perform his contract with the plaintiff. Fourth, that in so doing the outsider acted without justification. Fifth, that the outsider\u2019s act caused the plaintiff actual damages.\nLenzer, 106 N.C. App. at 512, 418 S.E.2d at 286 (quoting Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674, 84 S.E.2d 176, 181 (1954), reh\u2019g dismissed, 242 N.C. 123, 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955)).\nInitially we note, were it not for the dispositive effect of issue preclusion, the classification of Anders, Arrant, and Nichols as \u201cnon-outsiders,\u201d with the attendant qualified immunity, would merit consideration. See, e.g., Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 87-88, 221 S.E.2d 282, 292-293 (1976).\nIn any event, Case I established King was dismissed for \u201cjust cause.\u201d It is beyond question the finding of \u201cjust cause\u201d was integral to upholding King\u2019s dismissal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-35(a) (1995) (career State employees cannot be dismissed without \u201cjust cause\u201d). Put simply, in Case I, King fully litigated, and lost, the argument his dismissal was not justified. Therefore, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, we conclude King is barred from re-litigating whether his dismissal was justified and, accordingly, affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment on King\u2019s tortious interference with contract claim.\nB.\nFinally, we must determine whether the trial court appropriately granted summary judgment on King\u2019s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 claims.\nDefendants contend either claim preclusion or issue preclusion applies in the present case because, among other things, the \u201cjust cause\u201d determination in Case I necessarily resolved the issue of whether King\u2019s duty assignment was racially motivated \u2014 the crux of King\u2019s racial discrimination claims.\nWe note claim preclusion does not bar racial discrimination claims filed after a finding of \u201cjust cause.\u201d See Davenport v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp., 3 F.3d 89, 94-95 (4th Cir. 1993); Crump v. Bd. of Education, 326 N.C. 603, 612-613, 392 S.E.2d 579, 583-584 (1990), disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 665, 424 S.E.2d 400, recons. dismissed, 333 N.C. 166, 424 S.E.2d 908 (1992); Spry v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth Bd. of Educ., 105 N.C. App. 269, 273, 412 S.E.2d 687, 689, aff\u2019d, 332 N.C. 661, 422 S.E.2d 575 (1992). Therefore, only the potential applicability of issue preclusion to the present case merits consideration. See Davenport, 3 F.3d at 97 n. 9.\nKing maintained before the SPC, and now argues to this Court, \u201cthat he did not base his employment appeal on any claim of discrimination against him ....\u201d A party\u2019s unilateral recitation of an intention to reserve an issue, however, has no affect on the applicability of issue preclusion where the record indicates the issue was actually litigated in, and necessary to the outcome of, the prior case. See Thomas M. McInnis, 318 N.C. at 428, 349 S.E.2d at 557.\nIn cases involving claim preclusion or issue preclusion, we note the better course is to include a transcript of the prior proceedings in the appellate record. See Cellu Products Co. v. G.T.E. Products Corp., 81 N.C. App. 474, 477-478, 344 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1986) (this Court can only \u201cjudicially know what appears of record\u201d); Produce Corp. v. Covington Diesel, 21 N.C. App. 313, 315, 204 S.E.2d 232, 234, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 590, 205 S.E.2d 721 (1974) (where defendant asserts affirmative defense, it must ensure record contains all facts necessary for review). Nevertheless, after careful review of the record, including the recommended decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Michael R. Morgan, we believe the present record is sufficient to determine whether King actually litigated the racial discrimination issue in Case I.\nIt is undisputed that King was dismissed for insubordination, which the Policies and Procedures Manual of the DMV Enforcement Section defines, in pertinent part, as \u201c[t]he failure or deliberate refusal of any member to obey any lawful order given by any superior officer . . . .\u201d (emphasis added). Judge Morgan concluded, in his recommended decision, that King committed insubordination \u201cthrough his deliberate refusal to obey the lawful order given to him by his supervisor ... to perform a license plate inventory . . . .\u201d (emphasis added). The SPC thereafter adopted this finding in its decision and order.\nAssuming evidence of racial discrimination was actually presented during Case I, the administrative law judge and the SPC necessarily resolved, in defendants favor, any allegations made by King that his assignment was racially discriminatory and therefore unlawful. See In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48, 56, 253 S.E.2d 912, 918 (1979) (Administrative agencies must find facts and reach conclusions on the \u201cfactual issues [] presented\u201d by the parties).\nThe present record discloses that King testified: he was \u201cthe sole black process officer in the Raleigh office\u201d; he \u201ctold Arrant that there was an apparent racial problem [with duty assignments] ...and, in fact, \u201cthe entire matter was racially motivated.\u201d It is apparent from these findings King presented evidence during Case I that he was assigned inventory duty because of racial animus among his superiors. Therefore, under Rogers, we believe Judge Morgan, and the SPC, necessarily resolved the issue of racial discrimination by concluding the duty assignment was lawful.\nAccordingly, because we conclude, as the trial court determined, that issue preclusion bars relitigation of the racial discrimination issue, we affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment on King\u2019s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 claims.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and JOHN concur.\n. We note that issue preclusion only operates as a bar where, as here, plaintiff, as master of his case-in-chief, elects to proffer evidence that racial discrimination precludes a finding of \u201cjust cause\u201d for his dismissal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rosenthal & Putterman, by Charles M. Putterman, for plaintiff - appellant.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Hal F. Askins and Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARRY L. KING Plaintiff-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, T.W. ANDERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, FRANK W. ARRANT, JR., Individually and in his official capacity as District Supervisor, Enforcement Section, Division of Motor Vehicles N.C. Department of Transportation, and W.M. NICHOLS, Individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant, Division of Motor Vehicles, N.C. Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellees\nNo. COA95-226\n(Filed 5 March 1996)\n1. Conspiracy \u00a7 12 (NCI4th)\u2014 civil conspiracy alleged \u2014 mere speculation \u2014 summary judgment proper\nThe trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff\u2019s civil conspiracy claim which arose from his dismissal as an employee of NCDOT where plaintiff presented no more than mere speculation an agreement existed between any two of the defendants to do an unlawful act.\nAm Jur 2d, Conspiracy \u00a7\u00a7 49 et seq.\n2. Judgments \u00a7 274 (NCI4th)\u2014 tortious interference with contract \u2014 dismissal justified \u2014 issue previously litigated\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs tortious interference with contract claim where plaintiff had previously fully litigated and lost the argument that his dismissal as an employee of NCDOT was not justified, and based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, he was barred from re-litigating the issue.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 415 et seq.\nPlaintiff\u2019s right to file notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(l)(i) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 54 ALR Fed. 214.\n3. Judgments \u00a7 274 (NCI4th)\u2014 racial discrimination \u2014 reliti-gation of issue barred\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff\u2019s racial discrimination claim, since the issue of racial discrimination was addressed in plaintiff\u2019s prior action, and issue preclusion barred its relitigation.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 415 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 10 November 1994 by Judge Donald W. Stephens in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 1995.\nRosenthal & Putterman, by Charles M. Putterman, for plaintiff - appellant.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Hal F. Askins and Assistant Attorney General Bryan E. Beatty, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0706-01",
  "first_page_order": 740,
  "last_page_order": 745
}