Gooden v. Brooks
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendant first argues that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action, since the relief they seek is merely prospective. A party has no standing to enjoin the enforcement of a statute unless he can show that his rights have been impinged or are immediately threatened by the statute. 7 Strong’s N.C. Index 3d, Injunctions § 5.1. It is apparent here that with the exception of Ward Lumber Company no plaintiff’s rights have been impinged upon by the statute, and we find that the other plaintiffs’ rights are not “immediately threatened.” The only indication that there may be plans…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Giordenello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mosher Steel-Virginia, Inc. v. TeigSupreme Court of Virginia · 1985
- State v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. SheetzCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Brooks v. ButlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Lumber Co. v. Brooks, Comr. of LaborCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.