Skip to main content

North Carolina Cases January 31, 2022: Cmty. Success Initiative v. Moore

Up to North Carolina Cases

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
Date: Jan. 31, 2022

Case Description

867 S.E.2d 322 (Mem)

COMMUNITY SUCCESS INITIATIVE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Timothy K. MOORE, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al., Defendants.

No. 331P21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 31, 2022

Nicole J. Moss, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

Nathan A. Huff, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

Daryl V. Atkinson, Attorney at Law, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Whitley J. Carpenter, Attorney at Law, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Kathleen F. Roblez, Attorney at Law, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Ashley Mitchell, Attorney at Law, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Terence Steed, Assistant Attorney General, For State Board of Elections.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Adam K. Doerr, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Caitlin Swain, Attorney at Law, For Community Success Initiative, et al.

Paul Mason Cox, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State Board of Elections.

Jared M. Butner, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K, et al.

Kellie Z. Myers, Trial Court Administrator.

David Thompson, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

Peter Patterson, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

Joseph O. Masterman, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

William V. Bergstrom, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Moore, Timothy K., et al.

ORDER

Philip E. Berger, Jr., Associate Justice

Pursuant to an administrative order entered by this Court on December 23, 2021, and having reviewed and considered precedent established by this Court, the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, and the arguments of the parties, plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify the undersigned is denied.