Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Hughes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 16, 2016No. Nos. COA15–699; COA15–763; COA15–829Published

1DissentDillon, Judge

The majority concludes that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-267.1 (in which our General Assembly created "the three-judge panel" to consider facial constitutional challenges) abrogates our Court's appellate jurisdiction to consider the facial constitutional arguments raised in the present appeals. I believe, however, that we do have the appellate jurisdiction *407to consider the facial challenge arguments raised by these appellants. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

The North Carolina Constitution provides that "[t]he Court of Appeals shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the General Assembly *117may…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  2. Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. State v. ColsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Steingress v. SteingressSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  5. Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

9 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