State Ex Rel. Gilchrist v. Hurley
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Defendants assign as error the denial of their motion to dismiss the action for its failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. They argue first that the alleged conduct at the Par-A-Dice Health Clinic does not constitute a nuisance within the meaning of the statute. The statute under which these defendants were prosecuted in pertinent part proscribes the following conduct:
§19-1. What are nuisances under this Chapter — (a) The erection, establishment, continuance, maintenance, use, ownership or leasing of any building or place for the purpose of assignation,…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Smith v. GoguenSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Rose v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Stanback v. StanbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- STATE Ex Rel MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY v. MESKMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
- MICHIGAN EX REL WAYNE CTY. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY v. DuckMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Onslow County v. MercerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- Groves v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.