Smith v. Keator
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
The superior court held that the Fayetteville massage parlor ordinance was invalid on two grounds: first, because it was in conflict with state law; and second, because it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
A city has no power to adopt an ordinance which is in conflict with state law. An ordinance is inconsistent with state law when it “makes unlawful an act, omission or condition which is expressly made lawful by State ... law.” G.S. 160A-174(b) (2) ; see Tastee-Freez, Inc. v. Raleigh, 256 N.C. 208, 123 S.E. 2d 632. Plaintiffs…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Bolling v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sturgill v. Ashe Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- Duke University v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Brown v. BrannonDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1975
- Lewis v. SettyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
- Thomas v. North Carolina Department of Human ResourcesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.