G I Surplus Store, Inc. v. Hunter
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.
Plaintiffs assert, as their sole ground of attack, that the 1961 Act is “unconstitutionally vague, uncertain and indefinite, in violation of Article I, Section 17, of the North Carolina Constitution and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.”
The term, “law of the land,” as used in the cited provision of the North Carolina Constitution, is synonymous with “due process of law,” as used in the cited provision of the Federal Constitution. S. v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 769, 51 S.E. 2d 731, 7 A.L.R. 2d 407, and cases cited; S. v. Parrish, 254 N.C. 301, 303,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State v. BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- State v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1962
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Martin v. North Carolina Housing CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- In Re: Joseph Lee MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Schloss v. JamisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Flippin v. JarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.