{
  "id": 3741433,
  "name": "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY, and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitionees v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rainey v. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction",
  "decision_date": "2007-11-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 143PA07",
  "first_page": "679",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "361 N.C. 679"
    }
  ],
  "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": "640 S.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637766
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/640/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N.C. App. 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8375839
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/181/0666-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "640 S.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637766
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "795"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/640/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. L. Rev. 1657",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1665-66",
          "parenthetical": "footnote omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 S.E.2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "410",
          "parenthetical": "an agency's interpretation of a statute is traditionally accorded some deference by appellate courts conducting de novo review, but those interpretations are not binding"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567436
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465-66",
          "parenthetical": "an agency's interpretation of a statute is traditionally accorded some deference by appellate courts conducting de novo review, but those interpretations are not binding"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N.C. App. 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8375839
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "672"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/181/0666-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 5953,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.974515766599139e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8505335639259277
    },
    "sha256": "6b451e5ec88ae31d74c6edec220bd489a6e081cf12d997c8b76ba66c62861001",
    "simhash": "1:ce35fbb847a205ff",
    "word_count": 964
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY, and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitionees v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nIn reversing the trial court\u2019s judgment and order that petitionerappellee, Madeline Davis Tucker, did not qualify for a twelve percent salary increase under North Carolina\u2019s National Board for Professional Teaching Standards program, the Court of Appeals determined, inter alia, that the trial court erred in applying the de novo standard of review mandated by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c). We reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c), added to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act (\u201cAPA\u201d) by our legislature in 2000, mandates that in cases in which the agency does not adopt the administrative law judge\u2019s decision, \u201cthe [superior] court shall review the official record, de novo, and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c) (2005). In conducting its de novo review, \u201cthe [superior] court shall not give deference to any prior decision made in the case and shall not be bound by the findings of fact or the conclusions of law contained in the agency\u2019s final decision.\u201d Id.\nIn its order and judgment here, the superior court discussed N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c) and concluded that in conducting its de novo review it \u201cneed not defer to any prior decision in the case, or give any greater weight to the Agency\u2019s application of the law to the facts, [but] the Court may nevertheless give appropriate weight to an Agency\u2019s demonstrated expertise and consistency in applying various statutes.\u201d The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court\u2019s \u201c[d]eference to the agency [was] inconsistent with [subsection (c)\u2019s statutory] mandate\u201d and held that \u201cthe trial court erred in its application of the standard of review.\u201d Rainey v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Pub. Instruction, 181 N.C. App. 666, 672, 640 S.E.2d 790, 795 (2007). The Court of Appeals\u2019 decision appears to bar the superior court from giving any consideration to the agency\u2019s construction of the statute when it conducts de novo review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c). In our view, the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision goes beyond both the plain language and the intent of subsection (c).\nOn its face, subsection (c) provides that the superior court is not required to defer to prior decisions of the agency made \u201cin the case\u201d and that the court is not bound by the findings of fact or the conclusions of law \u201cin the agency\u2019s final decision.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c). Subsection (c) refers only to the agency\u2019s decision in the specific case before the court. It does not bar the trial court from considering the agency\u2019s expertise and previous interpretations of the statutes it administers, as. demonstrated in rules and regulations adopted by the agency or previous decisions outside of the pending case.\nThis reading is consistent with traditional canons of statutory construction. N.C. Sav. & Loan League v. N.C. Credit Union Comm\u2019n, 302 N.C. 458, 465-66, 276 S.E.2d 404, 410 (1981) (an agency\u2019s interpretation of a statute is traditionally accorded some deference by appellate courts conducting de novo review, but those interpretations are not binding). It is also consistent with a contemporaneous explanation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c):\n[T]he legislation only provides that \u201cthe court shall not give deference to any prior decision made in the case and shall not be bound by the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in the agency\u2019s final decision.\u201d If the only authority for the agency\u2019s interpretation of the law is the decision in that case, that interpretation may be viewed skeptically on judicial review. If the agency can show that the agency has consistently applied that interpretation of the law, if the agency\u2019s interpretation of the law is not simply a \u201cbecause I said so\u201d response to the contested case, then the agency\u2019s interpretation should be accorded the same deference to which the agency\u2019s construction of the law was entitled under prior law.\nBrad Miller, What Were We Thinking?: Legislative Intent and the 2000 Amendments to the North Carolina APA, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 1657, 1665-66 (2001) (footnote omitted) (Former North Carolina State Senator Miller chaired the committee that drafted the bill).\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West and Pamela A. Scott, for petitioner-appellee Madeline Davis Tucker.",
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY, and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitionees v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents\nNo. 143PA07\n(Filed 9 November 2007)\nAdministrative Law\u2014 differing decisions by ALJ and agency\u2014 superior court review \u2014 consideration of agency\u2019s construction of statute\nIn reviewing the final decision of the State Board of Education in a contested case in which the Board did not adopt the decision of the administrative law judge, the Court of Appeals erred in its holding that the superior court is barred from giving any consideration to the agency\u2019s construction of the applicable statute when it conducts a de novo review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(c). Subsection (c) refers only to the agency\u2019s decision in the specific case before the court and does not bar the trial court from considering the agency\u2019s expertise and previous interpretations of the statutes it administers, as demonstrated in rules and regulations adopted by the agency or previous decisions outside of the pending case.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 181 N.C. App. 666, 640 S.E.2d 790 (2007), reversing an order and judgment entered on 7 September 2005 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. in the Superior Court in Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 2007.\nPoyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West and Pamela A. Scott, for petitioner-appellee Madeline Davis Tucker.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0679-01",
  "first_page_order": 737,
  "last_page_order": 740
}