Lucy Inman

Justice Inman has served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals since 2015.

Notable Cases:

• Cooper v. Berger (2019): Wrote majority opinion. Held that the General Assembly did not violate the NC Const. by passing a budget apportioning federal block grant funds against the governor's preferred manner (2). Held that the court had jurisdiction because the interlocutory order was final as to the governor's challenge to the block grant appropriations (7). Analyzed the history and purpose of federal aid and block grants (9-17). Cited that the legislature had control of funds within the state treasury (19). Held that block grants were within the state treasury under the precedent of Gardner v. Board of Trustees of N.C. Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement System (NC, 1946). In Gardner, a police officer argued that his retirement fund did not derive from the state treasury because the funds did not come from the state's general taxation powers . Nevertheless, the Court held that it was the duty of the treasurer "to receive all monies which shall from time to time be paid into the treasury of this state" and that "A treasurer is one in charge of a treasury, and a treasury is a place where public funds are deposited, kept and disbursed" (21-23). Held that the Gardner precedent did not necessarily exclude sources of income other than state-levied taxes, fines, etc from the ambit of "public funds" and it did not involve federal funds (23-24). Concluded that Gardner was not controlling, and that ..."to the extent that [Gardner] is pertinent, its expansive reading of 'State treasury' and 'public funds' such that non-tax dollars deposited in a special fund for a specific purpose are nonetheless subject to appropriation suggests that the Block Grant funds are within the 'State treasury' for purposes of Article V, Subsection 7(1)." (25). Held that the federal block grant statutes did not show an intent for executive control of the funds (26). Held that none of the statutes awarded the funds directly to the governor or a state agency (28). Held that block grants were not "custodial funds" under the NC Const. (30).
  
• Deminski v. State Board of Education (2020): Signed Justice Stroud's majority opinion. Reversed a lower court's denial of defendant Board of Education's motion to dismiss the "right to education" constitutional claims of plaintiff parent on behalf of three children (1-2). Cited that interlocutory orders may be appealed if they deprive a party of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent review (7). Defendant argued its right to governmental immunity was harmed (7). Cited that boards of education are often shielded from civil suits for damages (8). According to the precedent of Craig, a colorable constitutional claim will survive governmental immunity (9). Precedent of Leandro defined Article I, section 15 and Article IX, section 2's qualitative minimum standard of educational quality and definition of "sound basic education" (10-11). Cited Doe v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education that "the constitutional right to education did not encompass claims arising from abuse of a student, even on school premises" (13). "Simply put, the right guaranteed to students under the North Carolina Constitution is the opportunity to receive a Leandro-compliant education, and that right is satisfied so long as such an education has, in fact, been afforded." (13). Held that the claims in this case were essentially the same as in Doe, except different parties were responsible for the abuse (students rather than a teacher) (14). Held that, while disturbing, the case was not distinguishable from Doe (15).
  
• In the Matter of: R.P. (2017): Wrote majority opinion. Reversed trial court's order granting guardianship (5). Noted that the trial court made no reference to the parent's constitutional role or even his fitness (5). Cited that parents have a right to care for their children absent a finding of unfitness (5). Held that a finding that a child was neglected was not sufficient to remove the requirement that a parent be found unfit (6). Held that parent did not waive his right to raise an objection at the trial stage because he was never granted the opportunity to raise such an objection 6-7).

Info from Other Sources:

• Tweeted "I am running for the North Carolina Supreme Court to protect the integrity of our justice system, preserve the rule of law, and defend our state and federal constitutions."
• Tweeted in September of 2020, "Thanks to the workers whose labor keeps our nation afloat, even during a pandemic. Respect for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We are all the same storm, but in different boats. And we must help one another until everyone reaches the shore."