In re Hughes
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
- Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. ColsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Steingress v. SteingressSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
- Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.