Legal Opinion

Hursey v. Town of Gibsonville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 25, 1974No. 55PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HIGGINS, Justice.

The plaintiffs, the trial court, and the Court of Appeals seem to have proceeded on the theory that the plaintiffs have a constitutional right to engage in the sale and distribution of wine and beer. The assumption overlooks the fact that beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages, because of the inherent danger in their unrestricted use, are made subjects of rigid regulation and control by the General Assembly acting under the State’s police power.

Chapter 18A, General Statutes of North Carolina, 1971 Cumulative Supplement, establishes, “[A] uniform system of control over the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Roller v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. High Point Surplus Company v. PleasantsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Cheek v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. G I Surplus Store, Inc. v. HunterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. Guthrie v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. MoralesTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Dep't of Transp. v. Adams Outdoor Advert. of Charlotte Ltd. P'shipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2017
  3. Durham Council of the Blind v. EdmistenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Perry v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Bruce v. State Board of Alcoholic ControlCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

4 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