Legal Opinion

State v. Joyner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 26, 1974No. 7421SC704PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant first assigns as error the failure of the court to grant his motion to quash the warrant on the ground that sec tion G(l) (a) of the ordinance upon which the warrant was based is unconstitutional. Defendant does not question the validity of the entire zoning ordinance, only section G(l) (a), which provides for the termination of certain nonconforming uses within three years after the effective date of the ordinance.

A motion to quash tests the sufficiency of the warrant to charge a criminal offense. The failure to charge a criminal offense may be a deficiency in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Blades v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Helms v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. City of Elizabeth v. AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Decatur County Area Planning CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Atwater Motor Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API