A party or person aggrieved who files a petition in the superior court may apply to the court to present additional evidence. If the court is satisfied that the evidence is material to the issues, is not merely cumulative, and could not reasonably have been presented at the administrative hearing, the court may remand the case so that additional evidence can be taken. If an administrative law judge did not make a final decision in the case, the court shall remand the case to the agency that conducted the administrative hearing under Article 3A of this Chapter. After hearing the evidence, the agency may affirm or modify its previous findings of fact and final decision. If an administrative law judge made a final decision in the case, the court shall remand the case to the administrative law judge. After hearing the evidence, the administrative law judge may affirm or modify his previous findings of fact and final decision. The additional evidence and any affirmation or modification of a final decision shall be made part of the official record. (1973, c. 1331, s. 1; 1985, c. 746, s. 1; 1987, c. 878, s. 17; 2000-190, s. 10; 2011-398, s. 25.)
Notes of Decisions
Meza v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 692 S.E.2d 96 (N.C. 2010).
· cites it 8× “For example, N.C.G.S. § 150B-49 deals with new evidence before the superior court and specifically directs that if new evidence is to be taken, the superior court judge shall remand the case either to the administrative law judge or to the agency that conducted the hearing,…”
Save Our Rivers, Inc. v. Town of Highlands, 440 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 17× “150B-51,” the trial court allowed petitioners’ petition only to determine whether they should be allowed to present new evidence pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-49. Petitioners submitted two reports (the Maas report and the McLarney report) that conclude the potential exists…”
Williams v. North Carolina Dep't of Env't & Nat. Resources, 548 S.E.2d 793 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellants argue that in order to present new evidence in a judicial review hearing, a party must apply to the court pursuant to G.S. 150B-49. If the court finds that the evidence is material and not cumulative, the court may remand the case.”
Mills v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 794 S.E.2d 566 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-49. *188 7. The hearing officer did not exclude any evidence presented by Petitioner at the hearing.”
Harding v. North Carolina Dep't of Corr., 113 PA 93 (N.C. 1993).
· cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 150B-49. The court’s review is limited to (i) determining whether the Commission heard new evidence after receiving the decision of the OAH and (ii) affirming, remanding for further proceedings, reversing, or modifying the Commission’s decision.”
Cummings v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 24× “On appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court, first, erred in affirming the State Board’s order, and second, abused its discretion by denying the Petitioner’s motion to consider additional evidence under N.C.G.S. § 150B-49. Upon careful review, we conclude the trial court did…”
Save Our Rivers, Inc. v. Town of Highlands, 461 S.E.2d 333 (N.C. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The petition does not satisfy the requirement of N.C.G.S. § 150B-49, that the petitioners explicitly state their exceptions to the proceedings.”
Ritter v. Dep't of Human Resources, 455 S.E.2d 901 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 150B-49 provides: An aggrieved person who files a petition in the superior court may apply to the court to present additional evidence.”
Devalle v. N.C. Sheriffs' Educ. & Training Standards Comm'n (N.C. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Five years before the trial court’s order in November 2021 would be November 2016, the same month the Highway Patrol first became aware of petitioner’s actions and ordered Lieutenant Morton to visit petitioner’s home.”
Staton v. Union Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Serv.s (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-49, a party who files a petition in the superior court may apply to the court to submit additional evidence.”
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.