NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 120-2.3 (2026)

Contents of judgments invalidating apportionment or redistricting acts

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 120 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every order or judgment declaring unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, in whole or in part and for any reason, any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts shall find with specificity all facts supporting that declaration, shall state separately and with specificity the court's conclusions of law on that declaration, and shall, with specific reference to those findings of fact and conclusions of law, identify every defect found by the court, both as to the plan as a whole and as to individual districts. (2003-434, 1st Ex. Sess., s. 8.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Pender Cnty. v. Bartlett, 649 S.E.2d 364 (N.C. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pender Cnty. v. Bartlett, 649 S.E.2d 364 (N.C. 2007). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 120-2.3 (2005), any judicial opinion which declares a redistricting plan "unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, in whole or in part and for any reason" must "identify every defect found by the court, both as to the plan as a whole and as to individual…”

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 595 S.E.2d 112 (N.C. 2004). · cites it 17× “N.C.G.S. §§ 120-2.3, -2.4. On 1 December 2003, the complaint in Morgan v.”

Harper v. Hall (N.C. 2022). · cites it 18× “1 (entitled “Three-judge panel for actions challenging plans apportioning or redistricting State legislative or congressional districts; claims challenging the facial validity of an act of the General Assembly”) and N.C.G.S. § 120-2.3 (entitled “Contents of judgments…”

Harper v. Hall (N.C. 2022). · cites it 18× “HALL 2022-NCSC-121 Opinion of the Court Assembly”) and N.C.G.S. § 120-2.3 (entitled “Contents of judgments invalidating apportionment or redistricting acts), N.”

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 593 S.E.2d 589 (N.C. 2004). · cites it 17× “N.C.G.S. §§ 120-2.3, -2.4. On 1 December 2003, the complaint in Morgan v.”

Harper v. Hall (N.C. 2023). · cites it 9× “See N.C.G.S. §§ 120-2.3 to -2.4 (2021). The 10 The North Carolina governor did not gain the veto power until the people approved an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution in 1996—over two hundred years after the adoption of our first constitution in 1776.”

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.