Study finds high court balanced on business.

• Position: Brief Article

Dean Plunkett is director of research and communication for North Carolina Forum for Research and Economic Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit group funded by business. NCFREE, working with a committee of lawyers and businesspeople led by former Court of Appeals Judge Jack Cozort, studied whether the N.C. Supreme Court is biased in business cases.

BNC: Did your members have concerns about the court?

Plunkett: Not really concerns, but a study like this had never been done before on the North Carolina Supreme Court. They had seen these reports [on courts in other states] and had no baseline to look at our courts. Judicial statewide elections aren't followed that closely. The candidates aren't known outside Raleigh. So our members thought this was a good idea.

Have courts in other states damaged those states' business climate?

Yes, other studies did find that their courts were activist.

How does the North Carolina Supreme Court compare?

From the studies I've seen, our court is by far more balanced. We've sent this to groups in other states, and they keep calling and saying, 'You guys are lucky with the court you have.'

By activist, do you mean pro-or anti-business?

We never went into this study thinking anti-business or pro-business. This study is different from our usual research on the legislature. The justices don't make the laws; they just review and rule on them. People don't want a court that is too far one way or the other. To our members, balanced was much better than anything else. They want to know that when they go in front of any of these justices, it is going to be a fair hearing.

How did you choose the cases on which to base the study?

That took the most time. There were thousands of cases we had to go through. Domestic and criminal cases were thrown out. Once we got down to legal questions, those decisions were made by the people on our committee. They got rid of ones where there was disagreement on whether [the impact on business] was positive or negative, where two businesses were involved [and where the cases were] fact-intensive or controlled by precedent.

Were you surprised to see that the justices' performance didn't break down along party lines?

It was somewhat surprising. In fact, I can remember the day that I worked out the final numbers, and John Davis, our executive director, actually heard me [exclaim] from his office. We went in with a little expectation, but nothing set in stone, that it would fall on party lines...