250 N.C. App. 269 - Vincoli v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Gomez v. United States · In Re the Assessment of Additional Sales & Use Taxes Against Halifax Paper Co. · Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC · Empire Power Co. v. N. C. Department of Environment · Batten v. N.C. Department of Correction
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In 2010, Vincoli was hired by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS") into a position subject to the NCHRA and subsequently attained the status of a career State employee. A career State employee is afforded certain protections provided by the NCHRA, such as the right not to be disciplined except for just cause. However, the NCHRA also grants the Governor the authority to designate positions within departments of state government, including DPS, as policymaking or managerial exempt from the provisions of the NCHRA. Until 2013, a career State employee whose non-exempt position was subsequently designated as exempt was entitled by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.1 (c) to a contested case hearing before OAH to challenge the propriety of the designation. ... .... On 21 August 2013, the Governor signed into law House Bill 834, which substantially revised the NCHRA. A career state employee's ability to challenge an exempt designation pursuant to the previous process changed with the passage of An Act Enhancing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of State Government by Modernizing the State's System of Human Resource Management and By Providing Flexibility for Executive Branch Reorganization and Restructuring. The Act, inter alia , amended the Employee Grievance section of the NCHRA by repealing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.1 and replacing it with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.02 , which omitted an employee's action to challenge an exempt designation as grounds for a contested case hear”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because we hold that Vincoli is entitled to a contested case hearing before OAH pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-5 (h), we need not address his claims based upon his right to due process under Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. We reverse the trial court's order denying the State's motion for summary judgment and granting Vincoli's motion for summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“). For purposes of this appeal some of the procedural background regarding Vincoli's first petition for a contested case hearing as recited in Vincoli I is useful: In 2010, Vincoli was hired by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.