Legal Opinion

State v. . Lassiter

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 19, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It is the position of the defendant that as the Yolstead Act, 41 U. S. Statutes at Large, 305, does not prohibit the purchase of liquor and the Turlington Act, ch. 1, Public Laws 1923, was adopted “to make tbe State law conform to tbe National law in relation to intoxicating liquor” under tbe “concurrent power” clause of tbe Eighteenth Amendment, tbe State was, therefore, at tbe time of tbe enactment of tbe local statute, limited in its power to legislate more stringently on tbe subject than tbe Congress bad done.

A similar argument was advanced in tbe case of U. S. v. Lanza, 260 E. S., 377,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Vigliotti v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. State v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. State v. . HickeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. State v. . WinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. MyersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API