Leete v. County of Warren

24 Citing cases

  1. Myers v. Town of Plymouth

    135 N.C. App. 707 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    Observing that in Leete, Supreme Court left open possibility that written contract which required severance payment could be enforceable

    We note in passing that the parties do not address the constitutionality of the subject contract. In Lette v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 462 S.E.2d 476 (1995), our Supreme Court found a county's severance pay expenditure invalid under Article I, Section 32 of the North Carolina Constitution which states: No person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in consideration of public services.

  2. Bartley v. City of High Point

    381 N.C. 287 (N.C. 2022)   Cited 32 times

    The dissent further opined that Mr. Bartley had "not met his ‘heavy burden’ ‘to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial.’ " Id. (quoting Leete v. Cnty. Of Warren , 341 N.C. 116, 119, 462 S.E.2d 476 (1995) ; Draughon v. Harnett Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 158 N.C. App. 208, 212, 580 S.E.2d 732 (2003) ). In Judge Tyson's view, the majority's opinion misapplied the standard of review and purported to shift the "heavy burden" Mr. Bartley must carry to prevail in this context.

  3. Bartley v. City of High Point

    846 S.E.2d 750 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    This presumption places a heavy burden on the party challenging the validity of public officials’ actions to overcome this presumption by competent and substantial evidence. Leete v. Cty. of Warren , 341 N.C. 116, 119, 462 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1995) (emphasis supplied) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not carried his "heavy burden" to show any genuine issue of material fact exists "to overcome this presumption."

  4. Elliott v. Enka-Candler Fire Re. Dept.

    213 N.C. App. 160 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that a definite term only exists when it is binding on both parties

    We note, in any event, that the affidavit only refers generally to a former employee of defendant; there is no actual mention of plaintiff anywhere in the affidavit. Defendant further relies on Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 462 S.E.2d 476 (1995), to support its argument that the Employment and Extension Agreements violate public policy. In Leete, a group of taxpayers filed an action to enjoin the Warren County Board of Commissioners from following through on its decision to pay the County Manager, who had voluntarily resigned after nine years of service, six weeks of severance pay totaling $5,073.12.

  5. In re E.D.H.

    381 N.C. 395 (N.C. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, the burden is "on the party challenging the validity of public officials’ actions to overcome this presumption by competent and substantial evidence." Leete v. County of Warren , 341 N.C. 116, 119, 462 S.E.2d 476 (1995) ; see alsoHuntley , 255 N.C. at 628, 122 S.E.2d 681.

  6. Opinion No. 2008-186

    Opinion No. 2008-186 (Ops.Ark.Atty.Gen. Feb. 12, 2009)

    Such pay represents a form of compensation for the termination of the employment relation, for reasons other than the displaced employee's misconduct, primarily to alleviate the consequent need for economic readjustment but also to recompense the employee for certain losses attributable to the dismissal. Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 119, 459 S.E.2d 232 (1995), quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1374 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis omitted). Cf. Gray v. Mitchell, 373 Ark. 560, 570, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008) (tacitly acknowledging this definition when noting that the payment of "severance pay" by the Little Rock School Board to Dr. Roy G. Brooks "allowed the School Board to remove Dr. Brooks from his position and replace him with a person who, in the School Board's opinion, would be a better superintendent.") Accord Mace v. Conde Nast Publication, Inc., 155 Conn. 680, 237 A. 2d 360 (1967).

  7. McMillan v. Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    No. 16-2249 (4th Cir. Apr. 3, 2018)   Cited 5 times

    "It is well settled that absent evidence to the contrary, it will always be presumed that public officials will discharge their duties in good faith and exercise their powers in accord with the spirit and purpose of the law." Leete v. Cty. of Warren, 462 S.E.2d 476, 478 (N.C. 1995) (quotation omitted). "Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of [this] presumption."

  8. Harrell v. City of Gastonia

    3:07CV396-H (W.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2009)

    It is well settled that absent evidence to the contrary, it will always be presumed that public officials will discharge their duties in good faith and exercise their powers in accord with the spirit and purpose of the law."Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 119, 462 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1995). Accord Maines v. City of Greensboro, 300 N.C. 126, 132, 265 S.E.2d 155, 159 (1980).

  9. Helsius v. Robertson

    174 N.C. App. 507 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that county government had waived sovereign immunity "[b]ased upon the fact that county governments are subject to the Workers' Compensation Act"

    Nor may it lawfully authorize a municipal corporation to pay gifts or gratuities out of public funds. Brown v. Comrs. of Richmond County, 223 N.C. 744, 746, 28 S.E.2d 104, 105-06 (1943) (internal citations omitted); Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 120, 462 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1995). In Leete, our Supreme Court recognized that "[s]alary, pension, insurance and similar benefits received by public employees are generally not unconstitutional exclusive emoluments and privileges.

  10. Morgan v. City of Charlotte

    Civil Action 3:22-CV-00003-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. Jun. 13, 2023)

    Nor is there any evidence before the Court to indicate that the Officers otherwise acted in bad faith. See Leete v. Cty. of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 119, 462 S.E.2d 476 (1995) ("[i]t is well settled that absent evidence to the contrary, it will always be presumed 'that public officials will discharge their duties in good faith and exercise their powers in accord with the spirit and purpose of the law.'”) The Court finds therefore that the Officers are entitled to public official immunity and will dismiss all the state-law claims sounding in negligence against them.