Gannett Pacific Corp. v. North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

<bold>1. Associations; Schools and Education — standing — nonprofit</bold> <bold>organization — associational basis inapplicable</bold> <block_quote> Wake Cares, Inc., a nonprofit organization, did not have associational standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a county board of education's plan to convert traditional calendar schools to year-round schools and then to assign students to those schools on a mandatory basis because the organization has no members and could not seek relief "on behalf of its members." Furthermore, the organization could not rely on<page_number>Page 2</page_number> the constituency theory of <italic>Hunt v. Washington State</italic> <italic>Apple Adver. Comm'n</italic>, <cross_reference>432 U.S. 333</cross_reference> (1977), to establish standing where it made no attempt to show that it meets the constituency test of that case.</block_quote> <bold>2. Declaratory Judgments; Schools and Education — standing — challenge to</bold> <bold>mandatory year-round schools — parents of students</bold> <block_quote> The individual plaintiffs, parents of public school students, have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action individually and as guardians ad litem of their children challenging a county board of education's plan to assign students to year-round schools on a mandatory basis because the individual plaintiffs were directly affected by the board's action where each of the students was initially assigned to a year-round school, and even though some of the students were ultimately reassigned to traditional calendar schools, they may still be assigned to year-round schools in the future.</block_quote> <bold>3. Declaratory Judgment; Schools and Education — subject matter</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — exhaustion of administrative remedies</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by denying the board of education's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment based on an alleged fa

<bold>Declaratory Judgments — procedure for administration of oaths —</bold> <bold>litigation appears unavoidable</bold> <block_quote> A de novo review revealed that the trial court erred by concluding that plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable controversy in their complaint for a declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>11-2</cross_reference> describing the procedure for the administration of oaths, because: (1) although it is not necessary that one party have an actual right of action against another to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of an actual controversy, it is necessary that litigation appear unavoidable; (2) plaintiff individual demonstrated her intent to avail herself of her asserted right to swear on her religious text, the Quran, and her intent to litigate that right; (3) the State demonstrated, by its refusal to permit<page_number>Page 431</page_number> witnesses to swear on any text other than the Christian Bible, its intent to continue the course of action; (4) the facts do not suggest any impediments to litigation that would make litigation avoidable in the absence of a declaratory judgment; and (5) plaintiff ACLU-NC has sufficiently indicated that its members intend to avail themselves of their rights, ACLU-NC has manifested an intent to litigate the issue, and there is no impediment to litigation which would render litigation avoidable.</block_quote>

The plaintiffs, two entities that, respectively, owned a parcel of real property and a billboard located on that property, sought a declaratory ruling from the trial court pursuant to statute (§ 4-175) following the failure of the defendant Department of Transportation to act on their petition for a declaratory ruling that they could replace the billboard's existing support structure. The billboard, which was located in a residential zone within 660 feet of a federal highway and had been erected prior to 1968, was a nonconforming grandfathered sign pursuant to the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U.S.C. § 131 et seq.) and related state statute (§ 13a-123). In order to replace the billboard's support structure, the plaintiffs acknowledged that they would need to remove the existing billboard for a short period of time. The department denied the plaintiff's application for a permit to replace the support structure, as a new sign was not permitted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §131 et seq. and § 13a-123. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the proposed replacement of the billboard's existing support system constituted permissible maintenance and repair. The court further held that, pursuant to a zoning statute (§ 8-2), the sign's preexisting noncon- forming use was a vested right with which the department and the defendant Commissioner of Transportation could not interfere. On the defendants' appeal to this court, held that the trial court erred in holding that replacing the billboard's existing support structure constituted maintenance and repair pursuant to federal and state law: although, as a grandfathered nonconforming sign, the billboard could continue to exist, even though it did not comply with state regulations, and it could be maintained and repaired without losing its grandfathered status, replacing the billboard's existing support system was not customary maintenance and repair because such construction would substantial