Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. . Ballance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 4, 1949PublishedCited by 120 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWinborne, J.
The defendant was charged with violating Chapter 92 of the General Statutes by engaging in the practice of photography for compensation without being licensed so to do by the State Board of Photographic Examiners.
The jury returned a special verdict in which it found, in substance, that on 25 June, 1948, in Raleigh, North Carolina, a city having a population in excess of twenty-five hundred, the defendant took and produced photographs and sold the same at unit prices exceeding ten cents per picture without being licensed to practice photography in North Carolina by the State Board of…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Yarborough v. North Carolina Park CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Hill v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by120 opinions
- Matter of MontgomerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- Corum v. University of North CarolinaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Sides v. Duke UniversityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. TolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
115 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.