{
  "id": 11299341,
  "name": "TOWN OF WADESBORO, A MUNICIPALITY v. JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, AS GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA AND INDIVIDUALLY; DAVID R. JONES, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL REHABILITATION AND CONTROL AND INDIVIDUALLY; BERNIE SELLERS, AS DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY; CHARLES HESTER, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Town of Wadesboro v. Holshouser",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7420SC307",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 65"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "sha256": "28a53bca9fc3fc7689221093e63e8fe6de293e1beaae89e696ddcdf8e35642bb",
    "simhash": "1:2c62e882f3bd1cf8",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Cakson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TOWN OF WADESBORO, A MUNICIPALITY v. JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, AS GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA AND INDIVIDUALLY; DAVID R. JONES, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL REHABILITATION AND CONTROL AND INDIVIDUALLY; BERNIE SELLERS, AS DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY; CHARLES HESTER, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nWe find it unnecessary to pass upon the questions which plaintiff seeks to present by this appeal. Plaintiff\u2019s case is predicated entirely upon a capital improvement appropriation of $200,000.00 made by Chapter 523 of the 1973 Session Laws for a Probation Commission \u201cHeadquarters Building \u2014 Wadesboro.\u201d By Chapter 1412 of the 1973 Session Laws (2nd Session, 1974), which was ratified and effective 12 April 1974, the Legislature found that \u201cthe operation of a Probation Commission Office in Wadesboro is no longer required,\u201d and amended Chapter 523 of the 1973 Session Laws by transferring the $200,000.00 appropriation to another purpose. The statutory basis for plaintiff\u2019s case having been repealed, we find this appeal moot and it is\nDismissed.\nJudges Vaughn and Cakson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry T. Drake for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General John R. B. Matthis for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOWN OF WADESBORO, A MUNICIPALITY v. JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, AS GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA AND INDIVIDUALLY; DAVID R. JONES, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL REHABILITATION AND CONTROL AND INDIVIDUALLY; BERNIE SELLERS, AS DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY; CHARLES HESTER, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND INDIVIDUALLY\nNo. 7420SC307\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 9\u2014 repeal of statute \u2014 moot case\nAppeal is dismissed as moot where the statutory basis for plaintiff\u2019s case has been repealed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, Judge, 13 November 1973 Civil Session of Superior Court held in Anson County.\nPlaintiff municipality filed this action on 23 October 1973 seeking to enjoin defendants from closing the district headquarters office of the State Probation Commission in the Town of Wadesboro and seeking a mandatory order requiring defendants to proceed with the building of a headquarters building in said Town, funds for which had been appropriated by Sec. 4 of Chapter 523 of the 1973 Session Laws. Defendants filed motion to dismiss under Rule 12 or for summary judgment under Rule 56, stating as grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction both over the subject matter and over the person, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the action.\nThe trial court allowed the motion, finding this action to be one against the State for which the State had not waived its immunity, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which the relief prayed for can be granted, and that in any event the plaintiff Town lacked standing to maintain such a suit. From the judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appealed.\nHenry T. Drake for plaintiff appellant.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General John R. B. Matthis for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}