Legal Opinion

Poore v. . Poore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1931PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Tbe parties have misconceived tbe scope of tbe Declaratory Judgment Act, chap. 102, Public Laws 1931. It does not extend to tbe submission of a theoretical problem or a “mere abstraction.” Barton v. Grist, 193 N. C., 144, 136 S. E., 344. If it did, its validity might well be doubted. In re Cryan's Estate, 301 Pa., 386, 152 Atl., 675. It is no part of tbe function of tbe courts, in tbe exercise of tbe judicial power vested in them by the Constitution, to give advisory opinions, or to answer moot questions, or to maintain a legal bureau for those who may chance to be interested, for the time…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Muskrat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Person v. DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. Cryan's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Person v. . DoughtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  5. Wood v. . BraswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. BurchTexas Supreme Court · 1968
  2. North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. Adams v. North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic ResourcesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. Lide v. MearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  5. State Ex Rel. Miller v. State Board of EducationIdaho Supreme Court · 1935

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

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

Powered by the Exa API