State v. Fox
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
Defendants rely on their motions to nonsuit. Did the court err when it refused to allow the motions? To answer correctly, *194it is necessary to ascertain exactly what crime is charged and what evidence, if any, tends to establish the commission of that crime.
The Solicitor, at the beginning of the trial, said it was stipulated by counsel for defendants that sec. 18-58 of the City Code of Greensboro, entitled “Obstructing Streets or sidewalks,” reads: “It shall be unlawful to obstruct or block any street or sidewalk without a written permit therefor from the city manager.” The Solicitor then said:…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Weyerhaeuser Company v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- State v. . BarksdaleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Piedmont Canteen Service, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Shoe v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Woodhouse v. Bd. of Com'rs of Town of Nags HeadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- High Point Surplus Co. v. PleasantsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Pittsboro Matters, Inc. v. Town of PittsboroCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
- State v. DawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.