N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 1
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2026)

Where cause of action arose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Actions for the following causes must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial, in the cases provided by law:

(1) Recovery of a penalty or forfeiture, imposed by statute; except that, when it is imposed for an offense committed on a sound, bay, river, or other body of water, situated in two or more counties, the action may be brought in any county bordering on such body of water, and opposite to the place where the offense was committed.

(2) Against a public officer or person especially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by him by virtue of his office; or against a person who by his command or in his aid  does anything touching the duties of such officer. (C.C.P., s. 67; Code, s. 191; Rev., s. 420; C.S., s. 464.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1944–2024 · leading case: Odom v. Clark, 668 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Odom v. Clark, 668 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “Boner rendered May 7, 2007 during the May 7, 2007 Civil Session of Mecklenburg County Superior Court denying [defendant]'s motion to change venue pursuant to G.S. §§ 1-77 and 1-83 as a matter of right in accordance with Rule 12(b)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil…”
Frink v. Batten, 646 S.E.2d 809 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 15× “Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2005), actions against public officers “must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose .”
Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “Defendants moved for a transfer of venue to Wake County contending that under N.C.G.S. § 1-77(2), Wake County was the only proper venue for this action against public officers.”
Heustess v. Bladenboro Emergency Servs., Inc., 791 S.E.2d 669 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 23× “After a hearing, the Robeson County Superior Court denied the motion and concluded that venue was proper in Robeson County, as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 . Bladenboro EMS, Howell, Brisson, and Freeman (collectively defendants) appeal.”
Wells v. Cumberland Cnty. Hosp. Sys., Inc., 564 S.E.2d 74 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 15× “, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 , moves this Court for a change of venue to the Superior Court of Cumberland County in that *586 Defendant Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.”
Hyde v. Anderson, 580 S.E.2d 424 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “An action against a municipality is an action against a public officer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2) for purposes of venue.”
Smith v. State, 222 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1976). · cites it 3× “As to the individual defendants, G.S. 1-77 (2) (1969) provides that actions against a public officer, or person especially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by virtue of his office must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose.”
Ford v. Paddock, 674 S.E.2d 689 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 provides that an action against a public officer, or person appointed to execute his or her duties, for acts performed in his or her official capacity, “must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose, subject to the power of the…”
Caldwell v. Smith, 692 S.E.2d 483 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Defendants properly filed notice of appeal from the superior court’s order with the Clerk of Dare County on 22 May 2009.”
Stewart v. Se. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 543 S.E.2d 517 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-77 (1999); Coats v. Hospital, 264 N.”
Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 535 S.E.2d 397 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2) (1999). For the purposes of determining proper venue, an action against a municipality “is an action against ‘a public officer’ within the meaning of [N.”
Pay Tel Commc'ns, Inc. v. Caldwell Cnty., 692 S.E.2d 885 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “2 The trial court determined that a change of venue was appropriate pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2), which states: Actions for the following causes must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose, subject to the power of the court to change the…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77(2) — 15 cases
Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997). “Defendants moved for a transfer of venue to Wake County contending that under N.C.G.S. § 1-77(2), Wake County was the only proper venue for this action against public officers.”
Frink v. Batten, 646 S.E.2d 809 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). “Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2005), actions against public officers “must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose .”
Hyde v. Anderson, 580 S.E.2d 424 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). “An action against a municipality is an action against a public officer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2) for purposes of venue.”
Smith v. State, 222 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1976). “As to the individual defendants, G.S. 1-77 (2) (1969) provides that actions against a public officer, or person especially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by virtue of his office must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose.”
Odom v. Clark, 668 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). “Boner rendered May 7, 2007 during the May 7, 2007 Civil Session of Mecklenburg County Superior Court denying [defendant]'s motion to change venue pursuant to G.S. §§ 1-77 and 1-83 as a matter of right in accordance with Rule 12(b)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.