Legal Opinion

State v. Strickland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 17, 1975No. 7516SC367PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The State assigns as error the trial court’s allowance of defendants’ motion to quash the warrants upon the grounds that the statute under which they were charged is unconstitutionally vague. We find the statute constitutional and reverse the order allowing the motion to quash.

*42The statute involved in this case is G.S. 14-288.4, which in pertinent part reads :

“(a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who:
“ (4) Refuses to vacate any building or facility of any public or private educational institution in obedience to:
“a. An order of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re BurrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  2. State Ex Rel. North Carolina Milk Commission v. National Food Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. In Re SteelmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  4. State v. SummrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. Nance v. Southern RailwaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. MacK v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  2. In re: T.T.E.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  3. In re: T.T.E.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  4. In re: T.T.E.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  5. State v. BowenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022

2 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