Case ID: se2d_813/html/0230-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the MATTER OF Helen Mae Case Cooper Walls HOUSE, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program
    In the Matter of Ruby Jacqueline Brown Davis, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program
    In the Matter of Martin William, Zimmerman, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program
    In the Matter of Geneva Moragne Ware, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program
    In the Matter of Maxine Colvard, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program
    Nos. 101P16 146P16 147P16 177P16 178P16
    Supreme Court of North Carolina.
    September 26, 2017
    Bobby L. Bollinger, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for House, Helen Mae Case Cooper Walls.
    Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.
    Karen A. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General.
    Leslie O. Wickham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Davis, Ruby Jacqueline Brown.
    ORDER
   The petitions for discretionary review filed in cases 146P16, 147P16, 177P16, and 178P16 are allowed for the limited purpose of reversing the Court of Appeals' dismissal of claimants' constitutional claims. These cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals for expedited consideration of the constitutional claims on the merits. See In re Redmond , 369 N.C. 490, 797 S.E.2d 275, 280 (2017) ("When an appeal lies directly to the Appellate Division from an administrative tribunal, ... a constitutional challenge may be raised for the first time in the Appellate Division as it is the first destination for the dispute in the General Court of Justice.").

To prevent manifest injustice, the petition for discretionary review filed in case 101P16 is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for expedited consideration of claimant's constitutional claim on the merits.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 26th day of September, 2017.