{ "id": 8358052, "name": "THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, d/b/a The News and Observer and The Raleigh Times v. C. D. SPANGLER, JR., President of The University of North Carolina and ARTHUR PADILLA, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University of North Carolina", "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina Press Ass'n v. Spangler", "decision_date": "1987-09-15", "docket_number": "No. 8710SC105", "first_page": "169", "last_page": "171", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 N.C. App. 169" } ], "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": "61 L.Ed. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 S.Ct. 2859", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "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": "147-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0109-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 289, "char_count": 4149, "ocr_confidence": 0.825, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1043275851417582e-07, "percentile": 0.762265097308762 }, "sha256": "ced7e6a700ec33b2a3e46c41858ab6c50615c22d97a4d7a06697c31cc78b0c05", "simhash": "1:1667d2617e2bc916", "word_count": 639 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, d/b/a The News and Observer and The Raleigh Times v. C. D. SPANGLER, JR., President of The University of North Carolina and ARTHUR PADILLA, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University of North Carolina" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHNSON, Judge.\nWe are met at the threshold with a problem of mootness. At issue was whether the chancellors\u2019 reports were public records under G.S. sec. 132-1 subject to disclosure. Appellants excepted to the trial court\u2019s finding that the records were made and received pursuant to law in connection with the transaction of public business by the University, a government agency, and that such records are therefore public and subject to disclosure. However, on 14 November 1986, appellants publicly disclosed the chancellors\u2019 reports that are the subject of this appeal. Thus, the issue before this Court was rendered moot by appellant publicly disclosing the chancellors\u2019 reports.\nThe doctrine of mootness applies:\n[wjhenever, 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.\nUnlike the question of jurisdiction, the issue of mootness is not determined solely by examining facts in existence at the commencement of the action. If the issues before a court or administrative body become moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response should be to dismiss the action.\nIn re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147-48, 250 S.E. 2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 2859, 61 L.Ed. 2d 297 (1979) (citations omitted).\nApplying the doctrine of mootness to the case sub judice we find that the question originally in controversy is no longer at issue. Thus, appellants\u2019 appeal is moot and this appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges Arnold and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHNSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Wade H. Hargrove, Michael Crowell, and Randall M. Roden, for plaintiff-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, d/b/a The News and Observer and The Raleigh Times v. C. D. SPANGLER, JR., President of The University of North Carolina and ARTHUR PADILLA, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University of North Carolina\nNo. 8710SC105\n(Filed 15 September 1987)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 9\u2014 moot questions\nQuestions as to whether reports from various chancellors of universities within the U.N.C. system with regard to intercollegiate athletics at their schools were public records under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-1 and subject to disclosure were rendered moot by appellants\u2019 public disclosure of the reports.\nAppeal by defendants from McLelland, Judge. Judgment entered 6 November 1986 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1987.\nPlaintiff-appellees sought an order compelling disclosure of certain reports pursuant to G.S. sec. 132-9. The reports were from the chancellors of several universities within the University of North Carolina system. Defendant-appellant President C. D. Spangler, Jr., acting pursuant to instructions from the Board of Governors of the University, instructed the chancellors to issue the reports to him so he could make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Governors. The reports included information and recommendations from the chancellors regarding intercollegiate athletics at the universities, and emphasizing length of athletic seasons, number of contests, and recruitment practices.\nOn 6 November 1986, the trial court ordered that the reports be made available for public inspection. From the trial court\u2019s order compelling disclosure of the reports, appellants appeal.\nAppellants petitioned this Court for a Writ of Supersedeas and a temporary stay pending appeal, which stay was granted by this Court on 7 November 1986. Before this Court could rule on the petition, appellants withdrew the petition and publicly disclosed the chancellors\u2019 reports in connection with appellant Spangler\u2019s final report to the Board of Governors.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nTharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Wade H. Hargrove, Michael Crowell, and Randall M. Roden, for plaintiff-appellees." }, "file_name": "0169-01", "first_page_order": 197, "last_page_order": 199 }