{ "id": 8522032, "name": "LARRY DEAN BOWENS, D. LESTER DIGGS, WILLIAM R. FEWELL, JR., CLIFTON EDWARD GRAVES, JR., FRED HARRISON, KAREN IANTHA JACKSON, MICHELLE JACKSON, EARL FREDERICK JONES, NAY L. MALLOY, EMERY L. RANN, III, and DENISE MAJETTE WELCH v. THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT C. HOWISON, JR., Individually and in his representative capacity as Chairman of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, HORACE E. STACY, JR., W. H. McELWEE, WALTER R. McGUIRE, FRANCES I. PARKER, ERIC C. MICHAUX, JAMES MULLEN, C. EDWIN ALLMAN, JOHN T. ALLRED, JOHN D. WARLICK, JR., and JAMES L. NELSON, Individually and in their representative capacities as members of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, and FRED P. PARKER, III, Individually and in his representative capacity as Executive Secretary to the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina", "name_abbreviation": "Bowens v. Board of Law Examiners", "decision_date": "1982-05-04", "docket_number": "No. 8110SC544", "first_page": "78", "last_page": "84", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 N.C. App. 78" } ], "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": "176 S.E. 2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561932 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 R.I. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "case_ids": [ 3142125 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" }, { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ri/112/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "413 F. Supp. 1092", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1514975 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1097" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/413/1092-01" ] }, { "cite": "438 F. 2d 699", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2206461 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/438/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 F. 2d 474", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 109454 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/504/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 L.Ed. 2d 670", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 S.Ct. 1803", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767289, 1767659, 1767373, 1767654 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0929-03", "/us/391/0929-01", "/us/391/0929-04", "/us/391/0929-02" ] }, { "cite": "20 L.Ed. 2d 162", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 S.Ct. 1262", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "390 U.S. 1011", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6353217, 6352826, 6353499, 6353029 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/390/1011-03", "/us/390/1011-01", "/us/390/1011-04", "/us/390/1011-02" ] }, { "cite": "386 F. 2d 962", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2088127 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "964-65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/386/0962-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 393", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 2660", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "426 U.S. 940", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6258881, 6260422, 6257128, 6260750, 6257935, 6259246, 6257649, 6258229, 6258582, 6259705, 6260091 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/426/0940-06", "/us/426/0940-10", "/us/426/0940-01", "/us/426/0940-11", "/us/426/0940-03", "/us/426/0940-07", "/us/426/0940-02", "/us/426/0940-04", "/us/426/0940-05", "/us/426/0940-08", "/us/426/0940-09" ] }, { "cite": "517 F. 2d 1089", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1127989 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1102-03" }, { "page": "1103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/517/1089-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E. 2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" }, { "page": "411" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568518 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S.E. 2d 319", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574532 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S.E. 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614579 ], "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N.C. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221603 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 S.E. 2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614002 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12168052 ], "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 S.E. 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1906, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656054 ], "year": 1906, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/143/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 L.Ed. 2d 300", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 389", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "423 U.S. 976", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6436824, 6437001, 6437098, 6436921 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/423/0976-01", "/us/423/0976-03", "/us/423/0976-04", "/us/423/0976-02" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 771", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564584 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 U.S. 232", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6160382 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/353/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8597325 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0260-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 745, "char_count": 14463, "ocr_confidence": 0.797, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.14476282563121e-08, "percentile": 0.5080498901673418 }, "sha256": "192f23705d451d3d6e1095be2b45d4b3dd86565c1620c1e5d81f1ee6d412beda", "simhash": "1:23cbb9c3046f622a", "word_count": 2355 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:38.946391+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges VAUGHN and Martin (Harry C.) concur." ], "parties": [ "LARRY DEAN BOWENS, D. LESTER DIGGS, WILLIAM R. FEWELL, JR., CLIFTON EDWARD GRAVES, JR., FRED HARRISON, KAREN IANTHA JACKSON, MICHELLE JACKSON, EARL FREDERICK JONES, NAY L. MALLOY, EMERY L. RANN, III, and DENISE MAJETTE WELCH v. THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT C. HOWISON, JR., Individually and in his representative capacity as Chairman of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, HORACE E. STACY, JR., W. H. McELWEE, WALTER R. McGUIRE, FRANCES I. PARKER, ERIC C. MICHAUX, JAMES MULLEN, C. EDWIN ALLMAN, JOHN T. ALLRED, JOHN D. WARLICK, JR., and JAMES L. NELSON, Individually and in their representative capacities as members of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, and FRED P. PARKER, III, Individually and in his representative capacity as Executive Secretary to the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiffs allege that G.S. 84-24 affects their fundamental human right to practice their chosen profession and that the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; therefore, they have stated a cause of action for declaratory judgment under G.S. 1-253 and defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion was improvidently granted. We disagree and hold that dismissal was proper.\nThe complaint is couched partly in terms of an alleged denial of plaintiffs\u2019 rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs\u2019 memorandum in opposition of the motion to dismiss describes the prerogative to practice one\u2019s chosen profession as a \u201cfundamental human right,\u201d said to be, in the case at hand, the privilege of practicing law. The right to practice law is an earned right, however, Baker v. Varser, 240 N.C. 260, 82 S.E. 2d 90 (1954), and it has been acknowledged by this land\u2019s highest court that a state may require a showing of proficiency in its law before it admits an applicant to the Bar. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed. 2d 796 (1957). We are otherwise unaware of any unqualified natural or constitutional right to pursue a given calling, and turn immediately to plaintiffs\u2019 argument, grounded on Article II, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution, that G.S. 84-24 is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.\nG.S. 84-24 establishes the Board of Law Examiners as an administrative agency of the State, with the duty of examining applicants and providing rules and regulations for admission to the Bar. In re Willis, 288 N.C. 1, 215 S.E. 2d 771, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 976, 96 S.Ct. 389, 46 L.Ed. 2d 300 (1975).\nIt is well established that the constitutional power to establish the qualifications for admission to the Bar of this State rests in the Legislature. In Re Applicants for License, 143 N.C. 1, 55 S.E. 635 (1906); accord, Baker v. Varser, 240 N.C. 260, 82 S.E. 2d 90 (1954); State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 51 S.E. 2d 731 (1949); State v. Harris, 216 N.C. 746, 6 S.E. 2d 854 (1940); Seawell, Attorney-General v. Motor Club, 209 N.C. 624, 184 S.E. 540 (1936); State v. Lockey, 198 N.C. 551, 152 S.E. 693 (1930). It is equally well settled that the Legislature may delegate a limited portion of its power as to some specific subject matter if it prescribes the standards under which the agency is to exercise the delegated authority. Turnpike Authority v. Pine Island, 265 N.C. 109, 143 S.E. 2d 319 (1965).\nId. at 14-15, 215 S.E. 2d at 779. The Legislature, however, \u201cmay confer upon executive officers or bodies the power of granting or refusing to license persons to enter . . . trades or professions only when it has prescribed a sufficient standard for their guidance.\u201d State v. Harris, supra at 754, 6 S.E. 2d at 860. The subjective touchstone of \u201ccharacter and general fitness\u201d to which the Board of Law Examiners must refer has been deemed a constitutional standard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In re Willis, supra. Plaintiffs in the present action attack the other inquiry authorized by G.S. 84-24, i.e., examination of applicants to the Bar, as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.\nG.S. 84-24 stipulates that \u201c[t]he examination shall be held in such manner and at such times as the Board of Law Examiners may determine.\u201d The requirement to conduct examinations is, in itself, a guideline, and any stricter\n. . . adherence to ideal notions of the non-delegation doctrine would unduly hamper the General Assembly in the exercise of its constitutionally vested powers. ... A modern legislature must be able to delegate ... \u201ca limited portion of its legislative powers\u201d to administrative bodies which are equipped to adapt legislation \u201cto complex conditions involving numerous details with which the Legislature cannot deal directly.\u201d (Citations omitted.)\nAdams v. Department of Natural and Economic Resources and Everett v. Department of Natural and Economic Resources, 295 N.C. 683, 696-97, 249 S.E. 2d 402, 410 (1978). The law is complex, protean, and ever-growing. We can think of no more appropriate delegation of authority than that of testing to determine a capability to practice within its seamless fabric. The legislative goal being the protection of the public interest by the maintenance of a competent Bar, the determination of proficiency becomes a ministerial function, not a matter of managing public affairs. The Board of Law Examiners is, therefore, not required \u201c \u2018. . . to make important policy choices which might just as easily be made by the elected representatives in the legislature,\u2019 \u201d id. at 697-98, 249 S.E. 2d at 411, but merely to compile and administer examinations. Form, grading and logistics only are left to the Board, which does no violence to constitutional principle.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint alleges that the rules and regulations of the Board of Law Examiners are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they contain no ascertainable grading standards. By challenging the subjective criteria required to grade the exam, which is largely essay in form, plaintiffs indirectly attack the form of the examination itself. Tyler v. Vickery, 517 F. 2d 1089 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 940, 96 S.Ct. 2660, 49 L.Ed. 2d 393 (1976). Essay examinations utilized in testing are rationally related to applicants\u2019 fitness to practice law, Chaney v. State Bar of California, 386 F. 2d 962 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1011, 88 S.Ct. 1262, 20 L.Ed. 2d 162, reh. denied, 391 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 1803, 20 L.Ed. 2d 670 (1968); Tyler v. Vickery, supra. Moreover, the Board has no obligation to adopt ascertainable standards for evaluation and grading.\nInsofar as the plaintiffs attack the lack of \u2018objective\u2019 criteria for grading essay examinations, we note that this challenge has been rejected by virtually every court which has considered it. Tyler v. Vickery, 5 Cir. 1975, 517 F. 2d 1089, 1102-03; Whitfield v. Illinois Board of Law Examiners, 7 Cir. 1974, 504 F. 2d 474, 476-77 n. 5; Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 8 Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 699, 705; Chaney v. State Bar of California, 9 Cir. 1967, 386 F. 2d 962, 964-65, cert. denied 390 U.S. 1011, 88 S.Ct. 1262, 20 L.Ed. 2d 162.\nSingleton v. Louisiana State Bar Association, 413 F. Supp. 1092, 1097 (E.D. La. 1976). The subjective grading procedures utilized by the Board are not, therefore, unconstitutional.\nPlaintiffs, by their complaint, also allege that each of them wrote answers to the 1979 and 1980 bar examinations \u201cwhich were in substance the same as answers written by successful bar candidates,\u201d but that they were denied a passing grade on the examinations by arbitrary and discriminatory grading, again in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs do not buttress the allegation with any assertion of fact or forecast of offer of proof.\nWe will not embark on an investigation to ascertain the integrity of the examination results in the absence of clear unequivocal allegations of probative facts that would establish fraud, imposition, discrimination or manifest unfairness on the part of the examiners.\nPetition of DeOrsey, 112 R.I. 536, 543, 312 A. 2d 720, 724 (1973). The mere assertion of a grievance is insufficient to state a claim. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970). Besides the bare assertion that the answers submitted by plaintiffs were the same as those written by successful candidates, there is no allegation whatsoever indicating in what manner the Board\u2019s evaluations were unreasonable, discriminatory, or capricious. Plaintiffs\u2019 allegation is, therefore, inadequate to state a claim on which relief can be granted.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 allegation that there is no opportunity under G.S. 84-24 for an aggrieved applicant to be heard regarding the Board\u2019s actions is not accompanied by any assertion of a right to a hearing. We note, nonetheless, that although a state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Schware v. Board of Law Examiners, supra, \u201centitlement to a hearing does not automatically flow from a finding that procedural due process is applicable.\u201d Tyler v. Vickery, supra at 1103. Indeed, due process is afforded by the opportunity for failing applicants to be reexamined. Tyler v. Vickery, supra. The Supreme Court has otherwise approved, pursuant to G.S. 84-21, rules for appeals from the Board as appear in the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina.\nPlaintiffs are entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of their pleading. The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was properly granted. The judgment is, therefore,\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and Martin (Harry C.) concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General and Special Assistant to the Attorney General David S. Crump, for the State.", "Malone, Johnson, DeJarmon and Spaulding, by C. C. Malone, Jr., for plaintiff appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LARRY DEAN BOWENS, D. LESTER DIGGS, WILLIAM R. FEWELL, JR., CLIFTON EDWARD GRAVES, JR., FRED HARRISON, KAREN IANTHA JACKSON, MICHELLE JACKSON, EARL FREDERICK JONES, NAY L. MALLOY, EMERY L. RANN, III, and DENISE MAJETTE WELCH v. THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT C. HOWISON, JR., Individually and in his representative capacity as Chairman of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, HORACE E. STACY, JR., W. H. McELWEE, WALTER R. McGUIRE, FRANCES I. PARKER, ERIC C. MICHAUX, JAMES MULLEN, C. EDWIN ALLMAN, JOHN T. ALLRED, JOHN D. WARLICK, JR., and JAMES L. NELSON, Individually and in their representative capacities as members of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina, and FRED P. PARKER, III, Individually and in his representative capacity as Executive Secretary to the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina\nNo. 8110SC544\n(Filed 4 May 1982)\n1. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 2\u2014 right to practice law\nThere is no unqualified natural or constitutional right to practice law; rather, the right to practice law is an earned right, and a state may require a showing of proficiency in its law before it admits an applicant to the Bar.\n2. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 2\u2014 law examinations \u2014 -no delegation of legislative power to Board of Law Examiners\nThe statute giving the Board of L\u00e1w Examiners the duty of examining applicants for the Bar of this State, G.S. 84-24, does not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority in violation of Art. II, \u00a7 1 of the N.C. Constitution.\n3. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 2\u2014 Bar examination \u2014 absence of ascertainable grading standards \u2014 no violation of due process and equal protection\nThe rules and regulations of the Board of Law Examiners do not violate due process and equal protection because they contain no ascertainable grading standards for the largely essay Bar examination since (1) essay examinations are rationally related to an applicant\u2019s fitness to practice law, and (2) the Board has no constitutional obligation to adopt ascertainable standards for evaluation and grading.\n4. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 2\u2014 unsuccessful Bar applicants \u2014 allegations that answers same as those of successful candidates\nPlaintiffs\u2019 bare assertion that answers submitted by them on a Bar examination which they failed were in substance the same as those written by successful candidates was inadequate to state a claim for relief against the Board of Law Examiners.\n5. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 2 \u2014 failure of Bar examination \u2014 absence of hearing \u2014 due process\nThere is no merit to the contention of plaintiffs who twice failed the Bar examination that their rights to due process were violated because there was no opportunity under G.S. 84-24 for an aggrieved applicant to be heard regarding the actions of the Board of Law Examiners since (1) due process is afforded by the opportunity for failing applicants to be reexamined, and (2) the Supreme Court has otherwise approved, pursuant to G.S. 84-21, rules for appeals from the Board as appear in the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Hobgood, Judge. Judgment entered 26 February 1981 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 February 1982.\nThe eleven named plaintiffs were twice denied licenses to practice law in North Carolina, all having failed the North Carolina Bar Examination in 1979 and 1980. They brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionally of G.S. 84-24, to have all rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Law Examiners pursuant to G.S. 84-24 for the admission to the practice of law in this State declared void, and to enjoin the Board of Law Examiners from enforcing the rules and regulations.\nPlaintiffs alleged that the Board of Law Examiners, pursuant to its power under G.S. 84-24, has conducted examinations without benefit of guidelines or direction from the legislature or any agency thereof, and that G.S. 84-24 sets forth no model under which the Board must act. They contend that the statute is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and that it is violative of Article II, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution. Plaintiffs maintain that the Board\u2019s rules and regulations belie their rights of due process and equal protection of the laws because said rules are \u201carbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and capricious in failing to provide ascertainable standards for evaluation and grading.\u201d Plaintiffs alleged that they wrote responses to the questions posed in the 1979 and 1980 bar examinations \u201cwhich were in substance the same as answers written by successful bar candidates,\u201d but that they were denied a passing grade and their rights violated by the Examiners\u2019 \u201carbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and capricious evaluation and grading\u201d of their exam papers. Plaintiffs also averred that the rules governing admission to the Bar provide no opportunity for an aggrieved party to be heard concerning actions resulting from the exercise of the Board\u2019s discretion.\nDefendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). The court entered summary judgment under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and plaintiffs appeal.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General and Special Assistant to the Attorney General David S. Crump, for the State.\nMalone, Johnson, DeJarmon and Spaulding, by C. C. Malone, Jr., for plaintiff appellants." }, "file_name": "0078-01", "first_page_order": 108, "last_page_order": 114 }