Moore County Court Politics Turns to Messy Legal Fight
Image of Moore County Courthouse. Source: NC Courts.
What started as contempt proceedings against Moore County Clerk Maness in early December 2023 has since exploded into numerous lawsuits and claims of misconduct from employees of the Moore County Courthouse. The constituents involved in the lawsuit are Maness, Moore County Judge Tanner, retired Superior Court Judge Web, Clerk candidate Duerring, and current Superior Court Judge Stone. Beyond the initial accusations of Maness not performing his court duties, the subsequent allegations centered on various parties using legal power for political gain. The conflict gradually expanded beyond questions about court administration and evolved into a broader political dispute involving elections, accusations of retaliation, and competing claims of misconduct. With various members of the courthouse accused of not performing duties or using their authority for personal gain, the situation demonstrates how local court politics can evolve into drawn-out legal and political battles rather than remain isolated judicial disagreements.
According to the North State Journal, “[District Court Judge] Tanner’s order accused Maness of contempt based on failure to obey court orders and outlined six issues.” The contempt filing was significant because it framed the dispute not as a personal disagreement, but as a question of whether Maness was properly fulfilling the responsibilities of the clerk’s office. Tanner essentially outlined claims that Maness had failed to fulfil his judicial duties. Examples of these failures listed by Judge Tanner, according to the North State Journal, are “Maness revoking access to the floor where juvenile files are kept, not accommodating the scheduling of special hearing dates, keeping an unclear filing system, and an instance of not serving notice properly in a civil matter”.
Following the filing of contempt charges, Maness filed a lawsuit against Tanner and former retired Superior Court Judge Jim Webb, alleging that they were abusing judicial power to get Maness fired and possibly jailed. Maness’s case also claims that former Judge Webb had an illicit affair with Maness’s predecessor, Susan Hicks. The core of the dispute is that Webb and Tanner allegedly wanted Hick’s long-time employee to be a clerk rather than Maness. From Maness’s perspective, the contempt proceedings were not simply administrative concerns but part of a broader effort to politically remove him from office. The legal argument from Maness’s side was that Webb and Tanner were motivated by their relation to Hicks to charge Maness.
To summarize the outcome, neither the contempt charges nor the original lawsuit proceeded. Judge Stone dismissed the contempt charges against Maness. Furthermore, Maness’s attorney dropped the case against Webb and presumably Tanner in January 2024. This outcome left many of the allegations unresolved, as neither side ultimately proved its claims in court. The reason was unclear but likely related to an unwillingness to vilify Webb and a lack of evidence. Although the original legal proceedings ended, hostility continued between the parties.
Almost 2 years later, new conflicts emerged. In December of 2025, Judge Tanner sent messages to Judge Stone alleging that Maness wasn’t performing his duties of creating a jury commission. Following this, Maness’s rival candidate for clerk, Deborah Anne J. Duerring, repeated the claims during her campaign. Maness filed defamation proceedings against both Duerring and Tanner. In his case, he also brought back past charges against Tanner. Interestingly, the new events followed the pattern of the past conflict. Judge Tanner begins with an alleged accusation that Maness was in contempt. Maness fires back, accusing Judge Tanner of failing to do her job and of having political motives to remove her. Maness dropped the charges against the person “colluding” with Tanner (Deborah).
However, this time Tanner took a more offensive stance by actively challenging the lawsuit’s legitimacy and attempting to dismiss the case before it advanced further. According to Sandhills News, Tanner filed a motion to dismiss Maness’s lawsuit in January, arguing that the claims relied on arguments from previously dropped litigation and were filed outside the legal time limit allowed under state law. She also claims that Maness filed the lawsuit for malicious reasons. These retaliatory actions suggest that both parties may have personal motivations for their actions
Another argument raised by Tanner’s lawyers against Maness’s lawsuit was that the filing was intended to weaken Duerring, a rival candidate in the clerk election. Another deviation in events is that, rather than going through legal proceedings, Tanner allegedly shared the information with Duerring during the campaign. This further blurred the line between judicial disputes and electoral politics, since accusations originating in courthouse conflicts were now becoming part of a public political campaign.
Taking even stronger action, Tanner’s lawyers alleged that Maness had influence over Judge Stone and requested that the case be moved 80 miles. Judge Stone had previously dismissed the original proceedings against Maness, making him the target of criticism from Tanner’s side. As a result, what began as a dispute about courthouse procedure expanded into accusations involving judicial bias, political retaliation, and abuse of influence.
The case continues to expand with Judge Stone retaliating by filing an investigation into Tanner’s lawyers for professional misconduct. Later, a special prosecutor clears Stone and Tanner’s lawyers of misconduct. Furthermore, as stated before, Maness once again dropped a lawsuit by ending the charges against Duerring. The charges against Tanner continue in the beginning stages of the process.
So far, none of the claims made by either side has been proven. Lawsuits, investigations, and contempt proceedings have all been either dropped or ended by various judicial officials. As the civil case continues, more evidence will be revealed, but until then, we won’t truly know the truth behind the matter.
It seems, though, that the initial hostility between Maness and Tanner evolved into full-blown legal fights involving multiple parties. Both Maness and Tanner allege the former of not completing their court duties. Furthermore, multiple parties have gotten wrapped up in arguments about using judicial power for ulterior motives. Judge Stone, who resolved contempt charges against Maness, was accused by Tanner of bailing out his friend. Tanner accused Maness a second time of contempt, but rather than filing a legal case, they gave the information to Maness’s political rival. Judge Stone also retaliated with an investigation into Tanner’s lawyers. All of these events seem to stem from personal conflict. Members of the court are directly retaliating against those accusing them, using lawsuits, politics, and judicial power to weaken opponents; the back-and-forth of retributive action points to a political conflict rather than a proper legal investigation.
The Moore County conflict demonstrates how quickly disputes within a local court system can evolve into broader political and legal battles. The controversy also raises concerns about public trust in the judicial system, as courts are expected to operate impartially rather than become entangled in personal or political conflict, and these concerns must be resolved if the courts are to continue to act as they were initially intended.