{
  "id": 2505708,
  "name": "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meyers v. Department of Human Resources",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 119A92",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "655",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 N.C. 655"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "415 S.E.2d 70",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N.C. App. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524878
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/105/0665-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 1369,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.694,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.5754854646575e-08,
      "percentile": 0.402659382844328
    },
    "sha256": "b5e1be5f2d9921d6f7588806b36b8b7f8982d3e219a2374c2feccea71586a52f",
    "simhash": "1:0cfb0c97629346fb",
    "word_count": 215
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:54:56.199642+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the opinion by Lewis, J., the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nOn 24 June 1992, this Court allowed the petition of the defendant-appellant, State Personnel Commission, for discretionary review of the additional issue as to whether the Personnel Commission is a necessary party. We now determine that discretionary review of that issue was improvidently allowed.\nAFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David P. Voerman, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Ann Reed, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant Department of Human Resources of the State of North Carolina.",
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant The State Personnel Commission of the State of North Carolina."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\nNo. 119A92\n(Filed 19 November 1992)\nOn appeals by the defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 105 N.C. App. 665, 415 S.E.2d 70 (1992), which affirmed the order entered 10 October 1990 by Brown (Frank R.), J., in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 5 October 1992.\nDavid P. Voerman, for plaintiff-appellee.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Ann Reed, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant Department of Human Resources of the State of North Carolina.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant The State Personnel Commission of the State of North Carolina."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 683,
  "last_page_order": 683
}