State Ex Rel. Amick v. Lancaster
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- North Carolina Ex Rel. Taylor v. Carolina Racing Ass'n (N.C. 1954)
- State Ex Rel. Summrell v. Carolina-Virginia Racing Ass'n (N.C. 1954)
- Gardner v. City of Reidsville (N.C. 1967)
- Twitty v. North Carolina (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1981)
- AMERICAN EQUITABLE ASSURANCE CO. OF NY v. Gold (N.C. 1958)
- American Equitable Assurance Co. v. Gold (N.C. 1958)
- Fox v. Board of Commissioners of County of Durham (N.C. 1956)
- State ex rel. Summrell v. Carolina-Virginia Racing Ass'n (N.C. 1954)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is not stated whether tbe action was dismissed on procedural or constitutional grounds. Hence, we do not reach tbe constitutional question, if tbe remedy be defective or inappropriate. “Tbe *158 courts will not determine a constitutional question, even when properly presented, if there be also present some other ground upon which the case may be made to turn.” S. v. Lueders, 214 N. C., 558, 200 S. E., 22.
It would be strange indeed, if the same government which authorizes the establishment of a “liquor control store,” should also provide for its padlocking at the instance of a private citizen and thus render all who are connected with its maintenance “guilty of a nuisance.” Gr. S., 19-1. It was never intended that the procedure here 'invoked to abate a nuisance, Gr. S., 19-2, should be applied against an alcoholic control board set up under color of legislative authority, or against one who rents a building to such a board for the purpose of operating a liquor control store. The remedy selected seems inappropriate.
There was no error in dismissing the action.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.