Legal Opinion · Dissent

Heatherly v. State

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 18, 2008No. COA06-770Published

1DissentCalabria, Judge

Since I conclude that the Lottery Act is a revenue bill that was not passed in accordance with constitutional mandates, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I further conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining plaintiffs should bear the costs of this action.

I. Revenue Bill

Article II, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution states in pertinent part:

No law shall be enacted to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State-directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the *225State,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Martin v. PrestonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Stephenson v. BartlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  3. Bidart Brothers, a California Corporation v. The California Apple CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  4. State v. . EmerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. State v. EmerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API