Case Name: HAZARD CANNON, ALVIN OLDS and NORMAN PHILLIPS v. N.C. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, and DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1995-12-08
Citations: 342 N.C. 399
Docket Number: No. 48A95
Parties: HAZARD CANNON, ALVIN OLDS and NORMAN PHILLIPS v. N.C. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, and DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 342
Pages: 399–399

Head Matter:
HAZARD CANNON, ALVIN OLDS and NORMAN PHILLIPS v. N.C. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, and DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
No. 48A95
(Filed 8 December 1995)
Appeal by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 117 N.C. App. 399, 451 S.E.2d 302 (1994), reversing the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for mootness entered by Herring, J., on 18 September 1992 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 November 1995.
Randall, Jervis, & Hill, by John C. Randall, for plaintiffappellees.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellant State Board of Education; and Durham County Attorney’s Office, by Thomas Russell Odom, and Tharrington Smith, by Michael Crowell, for defendant-appellant Durham County.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Wynn. As to plaintiffs' contention that the method of electing the merged school board is racially discriminatory, we conclude that the issue is not properly before this Court. Plaintiffs never filed pleadings in this matter alleging racial discrimination and thus did not properly present the issue for determination by the trial court.
REVERSED.