State v. Ritchie
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtWiNBORNE, J.
What is said by this Court in S. v. Brady, 236 N.C. 295, 72 S.E. 2d 675, is pertinent to case in hand. Paraphrasing the factual situation there stated, it may be said here: Cabarrus County has not elected to operate county liquor stores under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1937. In consequence, this case is controlled by the Turlington Act of 1923, as modified by the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act applicable to counties not engaged in operating county liquor stores, citing cases.
Upon similar premises in the Brady case this Court had this to say: “These propositions…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. ColeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. CarmickleOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- State v. IngramSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.