# Bailey v. State

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1998 · 348 N.C. 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564619

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES H. POU BAILEY, A. PILSTON GODWIN, HARRY L. UNDERWOOD, HENRY L. BRIDGES, ROSALIE T. ADAMS, JESSE M. ALMON, HELEN L. ANDREWS, WORTH B. SKEW, BILLY A. BAKER, PARKER N. BARE, ARTHUR C. BEAMAN AND GRACE G. BEAMAN, JOSEPH G. BINKLEY, ROBERT L. BLEVINS, ELLIE L. BOYLES, CHANCEL T. BROWN AND JOAN W. BROWN, ELIZABETH S. BUTLER, DOROTHY T. CARMICHAEL, JOHN CARRICKER, HAROLD D. COLEY, SR., ANNA L. COOPER, CHARLES C. COOPERAND BERTIE S. COOPER, T.J. DUNCAN AND ESTHER P. DUNCAN, DAN R. EMORY, MARTIN W. ERICSON, FRED W. GENTRY, IVEY B. GORDON AND IZORIA S. GORDON, LOUIS N. GOSSELIN, EARL T. GREEN, BOB HAMMONS, DARIUS B. HERRING, RAY F. HOLCOMB, TILLE M. HOLCOMB, KAY C. HURT, JOHN I. KIGER AND MARIE K. KIGER, CLARENCE T. LEINBACH, WALTER G. LEMING AND BARBARA C. LEMING, YATES LOWE, HARRIETTE B. McCORMICK, VIRGINIA H. MICKEY, WILLIAM F. MORGAN, HARRIETTA B. McCORMICK, EARL RAY PARKER, CALVIN C. PEARCE, MICHAEL PELECH, DIANE S. PEOPLES, MILDRED R. POINDEXTER, WINNIE D. POTTS, PATSY M. REYNOLDS, GLENN D. RUSSELL, BLANCHE S. SHIPP, CLYDE R. SHOOK, HAROLD E. SIMPSON, SONNIE B. SIMPSON, LENORA S. SMITH, FRANCES J. SNOW, CHARLES A. SPEED, JUSTUS M. TUCKER, WALTER P. UPRIGHT, RALPH B. WALKER AND MARTHA M. WALKER, JEAN A. WATSON, ROBERT I. WEATHERSBEE, RUBY WEBSTER, HARRY LEE WILLIAMS, DANIEL W. WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH H. WILSON, WILBUR G. WILSON, ERNEST B. WOOD, THOMAS S. WORSHAM, Individually for the Benefit and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner-Plaintiffs and W.K. AUBRY, JR., JAMES BRYAN BARRETT, NORMAN W. CASH, ROBERTA M. COOK, JOHN ED DAVIS, DANIEL M. DYSON, EDWIN C. GUY, SAMUEL L. HARMON, JOHN MARSHALL HARTLEY, DONALD ELLIOT HARTLE, MARTHA M. LAWING, DOUGLAS LAMAR MASON, DELMA DALTON RESPASS, JR., WILLIAM ELMER RIGGS, PAUL L. SALISBURY, JR., RICHARD A. SHARPE, NELSON LEROY SHEAROUSE, FRANCIS C. SIMMONS AND MARY E. SIMMONS, NED RAEFORD SMITH, G. VANCE SOLOMON AND EULALIA T. SOLOMON, THOMAS LASH TRANSOU AND WILBUR EUGENE YOUNG, Additional Petitioner-Plaintiffs v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, JANICE FAULKNER, in Her Capacity as SECRETARY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER, HARLAN E. BOYLES, in His Capacity as TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 8, 1998
- **Citations:** 348 N.C. 130; 500 S.E.2d 54; 1998 N.C. LEXIS 214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Frye
- **Judges:** Frye, Webb
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564619

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the purpose of an administrative exhaustion requirement in a North Carolina taxation statute is "to put the State on notice that a tax, or a particular application thereof, is being challenged as improper so that the State might properly budget or plan for the pot…
- holding that “the relationship between the Retirement Systems and employees vested in the system is contractual in nature, [and] the right to benefits exempt from state taxation is a term of such contract”
- stating that pension benefits are "a deferred portion of the compensation earned for services rendered"
- holding that "[n]otice for fiscal planning purposes is the touchstone" of the exhaustion requirement in a statute allowing taxpayers to sue to recover improperly collected taxes
- holding that “[njotice for fiscal planning purposes is the touchstone” of the exhaustion requirement in a statute allowing taxpayers to sue to recover improperly collected taxes

## Opinion text

Justice Frye
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This Court has decided, in two very recent cases, one involving the same parties as in this case, that the protest requirements of N.C.G.S. § 105-267 are valid. I cannot join the majority in overruling those cases today. Accordingly, I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion dealing with the protest requirements of N.C.G.S. § 105-267.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564619. Public record. Not legal advice.