Goldston v. State

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 443A09 FILED: 8 OCTOBER 2010 W.D. GOLDSTON, JR., JAMES E. HARRINGTON, and citizens, taxpayers, and bondholders similarly situated v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Governor, individually and in his official capacity Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. ยง 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 683 S.E.2d 237 (2009), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment and order entered 27 March 2008 by Judge Joseph R. John, Sr., in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 September 2010. Boyce & Isley, PLLC, by G. Eugene Boyce and R. Daniel Boyce; and North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, by Robert F. Orr and Jeanette K. Doran, for plaintiff-appellees. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, John F. Maddrey, Assistant Solicitor General, and Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, for defendantappellants. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. for James E. Holshouser, Jr., James B. Hunt, Jr., James G. Martin, Willis P. Whichard, John L. Sanders, and Marvin Dorman, amici curiae. Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A., by E. Hardy Lewis, for Joe Hackney, Harold J. Brubaker, Hugh Holliman, Paul Stam, Marc Basnight, Dan Blue, Daniel G. Clodfelter, Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr., and National Conference of State Legislatures, amici curiae. PER CURIAM. -2Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Formyduval v. Britt, 361 N.C. 215, 639 S.E.2d 443 (2007); Pitts v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 356 N.C. 292, 569 S.E.2d 647 (2002). AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.