because petitioner contended that the State Personnel Commission erred in deciding that it did not have jurisdiction over a particular personnel action, “our de novo review is again required”
How later courts described this case
- because petitioner contended that the State Personnel Commission erred in deciding that it did not have jurisdiction over a particular personnel action, “our de novo review is again required”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge GREENE
concurring in the result:
I agree with the result reached by the majority. I do not agree that the majority has applied the correct standard of review. The majority *470 states the standard of review for this Court: “[0]ur task is twofold: (1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” I believe this Court’s standard of review is the same as that of the superior court. Dockery v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Resources, 120 N.C. App. 827, 829 , 463 S.E.2d 580, 582 (1995); Wilkie v. N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm’n, 118 N.C. App. 475, 482 , 455 S.E.2d 871, 876 (1995); Fain v. State Residence Comm. of UNC, 117 N.C. App. 541, 543 , 451 S.E.2d 663, 665 , aff’d, 342 N.C. 402 , 464 S.E.2d 43 (1995); Brooks v. Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. App. 711, 715-16 , 443 S.E.2d 89, 91-92 (1994); Teague v. Western Carolina University, 108 N.C. App. 689, 691 , 424 S.E.2d 684, 686 , disc. rev. denied, 333 N.C. 466 , 427 S.E.2d 627 (1993); Jarrett v. N.C. Dep’t of Cultural Resources, 101 N.C. App. 475, 478 , 400 S.E.2d 66, 68 (1991). In other words, this Court’s duty is to review the decision of the administrative agency (not the order of the superior court) in accordance with section 150B-51. Cf. Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 299 N.C. 620, 627 , 265 S.E.2d 379, 383 , reh’g denied, 300 N.C. 562 , 270 S.E.2d 106 (1980) (all appellate courts are bound by the same standards of review). Indeed the majority in this case reviewed the “whole record” of the administrative agency and determined that there was “substantial evidence to support the SPC’s findings that petitioner was properly terminated.”
I acknowledge that there are two lines of cases in this Court with respect to this Court’s standard of review of cases from the Superior Court when that court has reviewed a decision of an administrative agency. Our Supreme Court, however, has held that the Court of Appeals must exercise the same standard of review as that exercised by the superior court when the review relates to an administrative agency decision. See Brooks, Comm’r of Labor v. Grading Co., 303 N.C. 573, 579-81 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 28-29 (1981); cf. Concrete Co., 299 N.C. at 626-27 , 265 S.E.2d at 382-83 (Court of Appeals must exercise same standard of review as the superior court when reviewing zoning decisions of town board).