{
  "id": 4152855,
  "name": "FAYE B. BROWN, Petitioner v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN KELLER, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Correction; and KENNETH ROYSTER, in his capacity as Superintendent of Raleigh Correctional Center for Women, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. North Carolina Department of Correction",
  "decision_date": "2010-08-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 517PA09",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "334",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "364 N.C. 319"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N.C. App. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4162058
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426",
          "parenthetical": "holding that defendant's three-year delay in requesting certiorari review constituted \"unreasonable delay\" under Rule 21(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 2,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/193/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N.C. App. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9189381
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "741",
          "parenthetical": "finding that \"four-year delay in challenging a judgment constitutes 'unreasonable delay'\" under Rule 21(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 2,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/158/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4140,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.451419731043111e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6551345271481078
    },
    "sha256": "1d42fe46470bd939865deb883e2e9319839b62a03ad4017fa7da027f96d286ee",
    "simhash": "1:0deba69948dbb49a",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:08:37.384656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FAYE B. BROWN, Petitioner v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN KELLER, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Correction; and KENNETH ROYSTER, in his capacity as Superintendent of Raleigh Correctional Center for Women, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in Jones v. Keller, \u2014 N.C.\u2014, \u2014, S.E.2d \u2014(2010) (518PA09), we reverse the trial court\u2019s 14 December 2009 order allowing petitioner\u2019s petition for writ of habeas corpus.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      },
      {
        "text": "Justices BRADY and NEWBY\nconcur in the result for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in Jones v. Keller, \u2014 N.C. \u2014, \u2014, S.E.2d (2010) (518PA09).",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Justices BRADY and NEWBY"
      },
      {
        "text": "Justices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON\ndissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Jones v. Keller, \u2014 N.C. \u2014, \u2014, S.E.2d \u2014 (2010) (518PA09).\nMORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORE D/B/A FAIRWAY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. CITY OF BESSEMER CITY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT\n) ) ) ) ) ) ) )\nORDER\n****** * * * * ******\nNo. 150A10\nThe Court allows petitioner\u2019s petition for discretionary review of issue Number 1:\n(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the Respondent Zoning Board\u2019s interpretation of the City of Bessemer City\u2019s Zoning Ordinance is entitled to some deference when the matter of the interpretation of an ordinance and/or statute is reviewed de novo on appeal and the reviewing court is entitled to freely substitute its judgment for that of the local zoning board?\nPetitioner\u2019s petition for discretionary review as to the remaining issues is denied.\nBy order of the Court in Conference, this 26th day of August, 2010.\nHudson, J.\nFor the Court\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILBUR WILLIAM FOLSTON, JR.\n) ) ) ) )\nORDER\n* * * * * \u2021\u2021(\u2021\u2021*\u2021* * # #\nNo. 317PA09\nThe state\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari is allowed for the limited purpose of entering the following order:\nFor the reasons stated in Jones v. Keller, 364 N.C. \u2014, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014 (2010) (518PA09), we reverse the trial court\u2019s 27 April 2009 order granting defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Jones opinion.\nBy order of the Court in Conference, this 26th day of August, 2010.\nHudson, J.\nFor the Court\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DERRICK ROCHELL FOREMAN\n) ) ) ) )\nORDER\n\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\nNo. 270PA10\nThe state\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari is allowed for the limited purpose of entering the following order:\nRule of Appellate Procedure 21(c) mandates that petitions for writ of certiorari \u201cshall be filed without unreasonable delay.\u201d See, e.g., State v. Rush, 158 N.C. App. 738, 741 (2003) (finding that \u201cfour-year delay in challenging a judgment constitutes \u2018unreasonable delay\u2019\u201d under Rule 21(c)); Huebner v. Triangle Research Collaborative, 193 N.C. App. 420, 426 (2008) (holding that defendant\u2019s three-year delay in requesting certiorari review constituted \u201cunreasonable delay\u201d under Rule 21(c)). Defendant\u2019s thirteen-year delay in filing his petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals constituted unreasonable delay. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals\u2019 order allowing defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari is reversed and defendant\u2019s appeal is dismissed.\nBy order of the Court in Conference, this 26th day of August, 2010.\nHudson, J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Justices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, and Katherine Jane Allen, Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Daniel R. Pollitt, and Daniel K. Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for petitionerappellee.",
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Tiare B. Smiley and Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent-appellants State of North Carolina and North Carolina Department of Correction.",
      "Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., by David Pishko, and Abrams & Abrams, P.A., by Margaret Abrams, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FAYE B. BROWN, Petitioner v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN KELLER, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Correction; and KENNETH ROYSTER, in his capacity as Superintendent of Raleigh Correctional Center for Women, Respondents\nNo. 517PA09\n(Filed 27 August 2010)\nOn writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-32(b) to review an opinion and order entered 14 December 2009 by Judge Ripley E. Rand in Superior Court, Wake County, allowing petitioner\u2019s application for writ of habeas corpus and ordering her unconditional release from prison. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 February 2010.\nStaples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, and Katherine Jane Allen, Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Daniel R. Pollitt, and Daniel K. Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for petitionerappellee.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Tiare B. Smiley and Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent-appellants State of North Carolina and North Carolina Department of Correction.\nElliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., by David Pishko, and Abrams & Abrams, P.A., by Margaret Abrams, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 428
}