Issue

Standing—challenge to monument removal—breach of contract alleged—legal injury

Summary

In a dispute over a city's decision to remove a monument from public property, although the Court of Appeals properly upheld the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff historical society's claims (for breach of contract, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment), its decision was modified and affirmed. The Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that plaintiff lacked standing under Rule 12(b)(1) to bring its breach of contract claim–which was a different basis for dismissal than that found by the trial court (failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6))–where plaintiff sufficiently alleged a legal injury to give rise to standing for that claim by alleging that a valid contract existed and that the contract had been breached. The Court of Appeals properly upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims for lack of standing, and plaintiff abandoned any argument regarding the merits of its breach of contract claim.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →