NC Open Meetings Law
Appellate Decisions Interpreting the North Carolina Open Meetings Law – Topical Index
Sigma Construction Co., Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Education, 144 N.C. App. 376 (2001)
Public body: A public body is an entity elected or appointed by a person or body with authority to do so; specifically the UNC-CH Undergraduate Court is a public body, because appointed by the Student Body President and confirmed by the Student Congress, under authority from the Chancellor and Board of Trustees.
DTH Publishing Corp. v. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 128 N.C.App. 534 (1998)
Public body: A nonprofit corporation that was a successor to an agency created by the board of commissioners, when incorporation effected no change in the structure of the agency, remains a public body. (This case was decided under earlier provisions in the statute but may still be relevant.)
WINFAS, Inc. v. Region P Human Development Agency, 64 N.C. App. 724 (1983)
Public body: A nonprofit corporation that has severed its ties to the public agency that originally created it is not a public body.
Chatfield v. Wilmington Housing Finance and Development, Inc., 166 N.C.App. 703 (2004)
Acting without meeting: Taking action without holding a meeting, when the action is one that must be taken in open session, violates the open meetings law.
Jacksonville Daily News Co. v. Onslow County Board of Education, 113 N.C. App. 127 (1993)
Improperly delegating decision: Allowing attorney for board to make decision when board required to do so violates the open meetings law.
Knight v. Higgs, 189 N.C. App. 696 (2008)
Official meeting: A meeting of a mediator with one member from each of two public bodies is not an official meeting of either public body because there was not a majority of either public body present.
Gannett Pacific Corp. v. City of Asheville, 178 N.C. App. 711 (2006)
Social gathering: A mediation structured to avoid the requirements of the open meetings law is not a social gathering and therefore is not in violation of the statute.
Gannett Pacific Corp. v. City of Asheville, 178 N.C. App. 711 (2006)
Notice, special meeting: If a city gives proper notice of a special meeting, there is no violation of the open meetings law because a news medium misinterprets the notice and publishes incorrect information about the meeting.
Brown v. City of Winston-Salem, 171 N.C. App. 266 (2005)
Closed session, procedure: It is a violation of the statute to go into closed session without adopting a motion to do so that states the purpose of the closed session; announcing what was discussed after the closed session does not cure the violation.
Knight v. Higgs, 189 N.C. App. 696 (2008)
Closed session, attorney-client: A closed session to protect the attorney-client privilege is not limited to litigation; rather, it extends to any matter properly within the attorney-client privilege. Because the purpose is to protect the privilege, however, the public body’s attorney must be present in the closed session; a public body may not use this sort of closed session to consider litigation strategy in the absence of its attorney.
Closed session, attorney-client: The case is an example of a legitimate closed session held to discuss matters within the attorney-client privilege.
Closed session, attorney-client: A closed session to protect the attorney-client privilege may be held to hear about mediation efforts and give instructions to the public body’s representatives in the mediation.
Gannett Pacific Corp. v. City of Asheville, 178 N.C. App. 711 (2006)
Closed session, attorney-client: a public body may not, in closed session held to protect the attorney-client privilege, direct a staff member to terminate a contract.
H.B.S. Contractors, Inc. v. Cumberland County Bd. of Educ., 122 N.C. App. 49 (1996)
Closed session, attorney-client: the mere statement that the public body discussed “procedure” with its attorney present does not satisfy the body’s burden of showing that the closed session was permissible.
Knight v. Higgs, 189 N.C. App. 696 (2008)
Closed session, confidential records: A public body may hold a closed session to consider student records, because of the strong federal policy in favor of confidentiality of such records; the record of disciplinary proceedings is included within the range of confidential student records.
DTH Publishing Corp. v. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 128 N.C.App. 534 (1998)
Closed session, property acquisition: A public body may hold a closed session on real property acquisition only to consider materials terms of the purchase contract that are under negotiation with the property owner. The public body must make public other aspects of the transaction that are not under negotiation; in this case the items not under negotiation included the property’s location, the property’s owners, and the use the city intended to make of the property.
Boney Publishers, Inc. v. Burlington City Council, 151 N.C.App. 651 (2002)
Closed session, minutes: The general account of a closed session may also serve as the minutes of that closed session.
Closed session, general account. The opinion sets out the general account for the closed session at issue and holds that the general account is adequate.
Closed session, release of minutes: Once a public body has announced what happened in a closed session held for protecting the attorney-client privilege, it must make available the minutes and general account of that closed session.
Remedies, invalidation: A letter that disclosed actions taken at a closed session that was made public at a council meeting was the “initial disclosure” of the actions, and therefore the 45-day statute of limitations applicable to suits seeking to invalidate actions taken in violation of the open meetings law began at that council meeting.
Coulter v. City of Newton, 100 N.C. App. 523 (1990)
Remedies: the trial court is within its discretion in refusing to invalidate an action because of the effect invalidation would have on the public at large.
H.B.S. Contractors, Inc. v. Cumberland County Bd. of Educ., 122 N.C. App. 49 (1996)
Remedies: the open meetings law does not authorize a trial court to order a public body to appoint someone to a position, even if the open meetings law had been violated in the process of appointing someone else.