Legal Opinion

State v. Rose

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 4, 1984No. 485PA84PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EXUM, Justice.

The sole issue in this case is whether N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a)(2), a section of the Safe Roads Act of 1983, contravenes constitutional due process because it is too vague and because it bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate legislative purpose. We conclude it does not and affirm.

I

N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1 provides:(a) Offense. — A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or(2) After having consumed sufficient…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter CarriersSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. United States v. PetrilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Davis v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1989
  2. Commonwealth v. DudaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. State v. HarringtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. HarringtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

23 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