Legal Opinion

Kirkpatrick v. Currie

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 29, 1959No. 378PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.

We must determine plaintiffs’ right to maintain the action before looking at the evidence to ascertain if any was offered to show the deeds of 1941 were based on valuable consideration.

The constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process (N. C. Const. Art. I, sec. 17, U. S. Const., 14th Amend.) are mandatory and require an opportunity to -be heard with respect to assented tax liability. Bowie v. West Jefferson, 231 N.C. 408, 57 S.E. 2d 369.

The taxpayer asserting nonliability may be afforded constitutional protection by either administrative or judicial review. Where not prohibited by…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Henrietta Mills v. Rutherford CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Power Co. v. . Clay CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Richmond v. Town of ReidsvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  4. Williamson v. . SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. George F. Uzzle & Co. v. VinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Guthrie v. North Carolina State Ports AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Great American Insurance Company v. GoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  3. Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Cedar Creek Enterprises, Inc. v. State of North Carolina Department of Motor VehiclesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. North Carolina State Ports AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

10 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