Corum claim in North Carolina

2025Opinion of the Court North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761 (1992), the amended complaint refers to the alleged constitutional violation as a “Corum claim” and asserts that it entitles plaintiffs to just compensation for the unrefunded fees they paid for the Fall 2020 semester.

2024The Court held that, when examining a Corum claim, “the judiciary must recognize two critical limitations.” Id. at 784 .

2024P’ship, 356 N.C. 2 “A Corum claim allows a plaintiff to recover compensation for a violation of a state constitutional right for which there is either no common law or statutory remedy, or when the common law or statutory remedy that would be available is inaccessible to the plaintiff.” Taylor v. Wake Cty., 258 N.C.

2024App. 659 , 669 (2017) (Corum claim available because absolute bar of governmental immunity left “no remedy at common law” for the violation), with Copper, 363 N.C. at 789 (Corum claim not available because there was remedy in administrative appeal); Taylor v. Wake County, 258 N.C.

2015A & T State University who brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Corum claim under the North Carolina Constitution after his contract expired and he was not reappointed to the faculty. 124 N.C.App. at 614 , 478 S.E.2d at 219 .

2015A & T State University who brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Corum claim under the North Carolina Constitution after his contract expired and he was not reappointed to the faculty. 124 N.C.App. at 614 , 478 S.E.2d at 219 .

2018App. at 301 -02 , 730 S.E.2d at 238-39 (holding that suit against a defendant in his individual capacity *189 is sufficient to preclude the plaintiff from asserting a Corum claim against the defendant in his official capacity ); Phillips v. Gray , 163 N.C.

2018App. at 301 -02 , 730 S.E.2d at 238-39 (holding that suit against a defendant in his individual capacity *189 is sufficient to preclude the plaintiff from asserting a Corum claim against the defendant in his official capacity ); Phillips v. Gray , 163 N.C.

2024App. 659 , 669 (2017) (Corum claim available because absolute bar of governmental immunity left “no remedy at common law” for the violation), with Copper, 363 N.C. at 789 (Corum claim not available because there was remedy in administrative appeal); Taylor v. Wake County, 258 N.C.

2024We held that Mr. Douglas could not bring a Corum claim because existing mechanisms would “redress [his] alleged constitutional injury.” Id. at 788 .

2022Since the Order dismissed Plaintiffs’ Corum claim but not its contract claims, it did not “dispose of the case, but [left] it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.” See Veazey, 231 N.C. at 362 , 57 S.E.2d at 381 (so defining an interlocutory order).

2022Since the Order dismissed Plaintiffs’ Corum claim but not its contract claims, it did not “dispose of the case, but [left] it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.” See Veazey, 231 N.C. at 362 , 57 S.E.2d at 381 (so defining an interlocutory order).

2022App. at 555 , 665 S.E.2d at 796 (when reviewing the dismissal of a Corum claim stating, “In reviewing a trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the appellate court must inquire whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” (quoting Newberne, 359 N.C. at 784, 618 S.E.2d at 203 )). 2.

2022App. at 555 , 665 S.E.2d at 796 (when reviewing the dismissal of a Corum claim stating, “In reviewing a trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the appellate court must inquire whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” (quoting Newberne, 359 N.C. at 784, 618 S.E.2d at 203 )). 2.

2022App. at 555 , 665 S.E.2d at 796 (when reviewing the dismissal of a Corum claim stating, “In reviewing a trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the appellate court must inquire whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” (quoting Newberne, 359 N.C. at 784, 618 S.E.2d at 203 )). 2.

2022App. at 555 , 665 S.E.2d at 796 (when reviewing the dismissal of a Corum claim stating, “In reviewing a trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the appellate court must inquire whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” (quoting Newberne, 359 N.C. at 784, 618 S.E.2d at 203 )). 2.

2022App. 119, 122 , 759 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2014) (“Generally, there is no 3 Plaintiffs refer to multiple Corum claims in their appellate briefing, but the Amended Complaint only includes one Corum claim.

2022App. 119, 122 , 759 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2014) (“Generally, there is no 3 Plaintiffs refer to multiple Corum claims in their appellate briefing, but the Amended Complaint only includes one Corum claim.

2018Plaintiff relies upon the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97 , 489 S.E.2d 880 (1997), which held that a plaintiff may simultaneously bring *182 an action against DHHS in the Industrial Commission and an action against a county DSS agency in superior court.

2018Plaintiff relies upon the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97 , 489 S.E.2d 880 (1997), which held that a plaintiff may simultaneously bring *182 an action against DHHS in the Industrial Commission and an action against a county DSS agency in superior court.

2026See Williams, 217 N.C.

2026See Williams, 217 N.C.

2025A. Standard of Review “Questions of law regarding the applicability of sovereign or governmental immunity are reviewed de novo.” Lannan v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of N.C., 387 N.C. 239 , 246 (2025) (citing Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 368 N.C. 440, 448 (2016)).

2024See Tully, 370 N.C. at 536 (allowing Corum claim under Article I, Section I when the plaintiff’s government employer “arbitrarily and capriciously denied him the ability to appeal an aspect of the promotional process” by ignoring its own policies and “summarily denying his grievance petition without any reason or rationale other than that the examination answers were not a grievable item” (cleaned up)).

2016It is well established, however, that a "plaintiff may assert his freedom of speech right only against state officials, sued in their official capacity." Corum v. Univ. of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761 , 788, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 293 (1992) ("[P]laintiff cannot rely on the Constitution to support a claim for money damages against individuals, acting in their personal capacities for the alleged violation of freedom of speech rights recognized under the Constitution."); Swain v. Elfland, 145 N.C.App. 383 , 391, 550 S.E.2d 530 , 536 (2001) ("To the extent that plaintiff alleges a Corum claim against d

2016It is well established, however, that a "plaintiff may assert his freedom of speech right only against state officials, sued in their official capacity." Corum v. Univ. of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761 , 788, 413 S.E.2d 276 , 293 (1992) ("[P]laintiff cannot rely on the Constitution to support a claim for money damages against individuals, acting in their personal capacities for the alleged violation of freedom of speech rights recognized under the Constitution."); Swain v. Elfland, 145 N.C.App. 383 , 391, 550 S.E.2d 530 , 536 (2001) ("To the extent that plaintiff alleges a Corum claim against d

1996Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1099 (E.D.N.C. 1984).