NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-460 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 160A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The words defined in this section shall have the meanings indicated when used in this Part:

(1) "Undertaking" means the joint exercise by two or more units of local government, or the contractual exercise by one unit for one or more other units, of any power, function, public enterprise, right, privilege, or immunity of local government.

(2) "Unit," or "unit of local government" means a county, city, consolidated city-county, local board of education, sanitary district, facility authority created under Part 4 of this Article, special district created under Article 43 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes, or other local political subdivision, authority, or agency of local government. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1975, c. 821, s. 4; 1979, c. 774, s. 1; 1981, c. 641; 1995, c. 458, s. 3; 2009-527, s. 2(f).)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Reese v. City of Charlotte, 676 S.E.2d 493 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reese v. City of Charlotte, 676 S.E.2d 493 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff contends that the Interlocal Agreement does not constitute a joint exercise by City and County and fails to meet the requirements of an “undertaking” as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-460. Plaintiffs argument is that the Interlocal Agreement is “actually a…”

Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. City of Laurinburg, 606 S.E.2d 721 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 160A-272 (2003) (lease of excess property); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 160A-460 through -464 (2003) (“interlocal” agreements); N.”

Trask v. City of Wilmington, 306 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983). “, G.S. 160A-460 et seq. (Interlocal Cooperation); G.”

Fearrington v. City of Greenville (N.C. 2024). · cites it 3× “See N.C.G.S. §§ 160A-460, -461, -466 (2023). Put simply, neither the City nor the Board needed extra legislative approval for an Interlocal Agreement funding the RLCEP, unless that Agreement allowed cost splitting above the 10% cap set by section 115C-437.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-460(1) — 1 case

Reese v. City of Charlotte, 676 S.E.2d 493 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiff contends that the Interlocal Agreement does not constitute a joint exercise by City and County and fails to meet the requirements of an “undertaking” as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-460. Plaintiffs argument is that the Interlocal Agreement is “actually a…”

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.