State v. Dorsett
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, J.
Defendants assign as error that the trial judge ruled the Ordinance to be constitutional and denied the motions to quash the warrants.
A statute or ordinance is presumed to have meaning and will be upheld if its meaning is ascertainable with reasonable certainty by proper construction. Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665, 149 S.E. 2d 1. If a statute is susceptible to two interpretations, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the former will be adopted. Milk Commission v. Food Stores, 270 N.C. 323, 154 S.E. 2d 548. The ordinance attacked in this case is clearly criminal in nature…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kovacs v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- State Ex Rel. North Carolina Milk Commission v. National Food Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Hobbs v. County of MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Smith v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- City of Portland v. AzizCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
- State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- State v. GarrenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Goodman Toyota, Inc. v. City of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- People v. KleberJustice Court of Village of Muttontown · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.