{
  "id": 11800576,
  "name": "CAROLINA SPIRITS, INC., Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carolina Spirits, Inc. v. City of Raleigh",
  "decision_date": "1997-11-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-25",
  "first_page": "745",
  "last_page": "748",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 745"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E.2d 369",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "374"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565529
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "690"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S.E.2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "409"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628623
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "118"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 S.E.2d 402",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "413-4",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 118, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409, (1949"
        },
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.C. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568518
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "703",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 118, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409, (1949"
        },
        {
          "page": "703"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/295/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "647 TC 71",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "T.C.",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 5380,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3564274168515307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7937893290303798
    },
    "sha256": "2668429e0110340d075a52738d1abf4d36f25796f2dfe825ba9c489616dc762d",
    "simhash": "1:3ef84146008196a0",
    "word_count": 875
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CAROLINA SPIRITS, INC., Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThe City of Raleigh (City) appeals from a judgment (entered pursuant to a declaratory judgment complaint filed by Carolina Spirits, Inc. (plaintiff)) directing it not to enforce a provision of an ordinance adopted by the City in 1977 that prohibited the operation of an \u201cadult establishment\u201d within 1,200 feet of another adult establishment.\nThe plaintiff owns and operates a nightclub named \u201cLegends\u201d which features female impersonations. On 1 April 1996 the City issued a citation to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff was operating an \u201cadult establishment\u201d in violation of an ordinance of the City. On 8 April 1996, the plaintiff paid, under protest, a $50.00 fine for the violation. On 20 May 1996 the plaintiff filed a request for a declaratory judgment.\nThe 1977 ordinance defines an \u201cadult establishment\u201d as \u201c[a]ny place contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.10(b) including adult cabaret(s).\u201d Raleigh, N.C. Ordinance 647 TC 71 (Nov. 1, 1977). This ordinance was amended several times after 1977 and at the time the complaint in this action was filed (and the citation issued) the definition of \u201cadult establishment\u201d had been changed to read as follows: \u201c[a]dult cabarets, adult media centers, and any place contained in G.S. 14-202.10(b), excluding masseurs.\u201d Raleigh, N.C., Code \u00a7 10-2002 (1996). The plaintiff, however, based its request for the declaratory judgment on the definition of \u201cadult establishment\u201d as it read in the 1977 ordinance and the trial court declared the rights of the parties within the context of the 1977 definition of \u201cadult establishment.\u201d\nThe dispostive issue is whether, at the time the complaint was filed, there existed a real controversy between the parties with respect to the meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d within the context of the 1977 ordinance.\n\u201c[A]n action for a declaratory judgment will lie only in a case in which there is an actual or real existing controversy between parties having adverse interests in the matter in dispute.\u201d Adams v. Dept. of N.E.R and Everett v. Dept. of N.E.R., 295 N.C. 683, 703, 249 S.E.2d 402, 413-4 (1978) (quoting Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 118, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409, (1949). \u201c[T]he sound principle that judicial resources should be focused on problems which are real and present rather than dissipated on abstract, hypothetical or remote questions is fully applicable to the Declaratory Judgment Act.\u201d Adams, 295 N.C. at 703, 249 S.E.2d at 414. A court, therefore, cannot construe a statute in a declaratory judgment action if the statute has been repealed and if an interpretation of that statute would be moot. 22A Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments \u00a7 88 (1988).\nIn this case, the plaintiff requested a declaration of its rights under the 1977 version of the ordinance defining \u201cadult establishment\u201d and the trial court\u2019s judgment declared the rights of the parties within the context of the 1977 ordinance. In fact, at the time the complaint was filed (and at the time the plaintiff was cited by the City for violation of the ordinance) the 1977 definition of \u201cadult establishment\u201d had been replaced by a similar yet different definition. Thus, at the time the complaint was filed there did not exist an actual or real controversy with respect to the meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d as defined in the 1977 version of the ordinance. The plaintiff was not at that time, nor could it be in the future, subject to regulation under an ordinance (or provision thereof) that was no longer valid. Simply put, the meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d as it was defined by the ordinance in 1977 is moot and the trial court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue presented.\nWe are aware that there may indeed be a present and real controversy between these parties with respect to the meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d in the context of the current statute but that issue is not before this Court. Not until the trial court declares the rights of the parties with respect to the new ordinance would that question be ripe for review in this Court. See Harris v. Harris, 307 N.C. 684, 690, 300 S.E.2d 369, 374 (1983).\nVacated.\nJudges JOHN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tharrington Smith, by Randall M. Roden and E. Hardy Lewis, for 'plaintiff appellee.",
      "City Attorney Thomas A. McCormick, by Associate City Attorney Dorothy K. Woodward, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CAROLINA SPIRITS, INC., Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH, Defendant\nNo. COA97-25\n(Filed 18 November 1997)\nDeclaratory Judgment Actions \u00a7 8 (NCI4th)\u2014 1977 ordinance \u2014 adult establishment \u2014 definition changed \u2014 1977 meaning moot\nThere was no real controversy between the parties and the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue presented where plaintiff owned and operated a nightclub which featured female impersonators and sought a declaratory judgment against enforcement of a 1977 ordinance prohibiting operation of one adult establishment within 1200 feet of another. The 1977 definition of \u201cadult establishment\u201d has been replaced and the meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d as defined by the 1977 ordinance is moot. The meaning of \u201cadult establishment\u201d in the context of the current statute was not before the appellate court.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment dated 6 November 1996 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 September 1997.\nTharrington Smith, by Randall M. Roden and E. Hardy Lewis, for 'plaintiff appellee.\nCity Attorney Thomas A. McCormick, by Associate City Attorney Dorothy K. Woodward, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0745-01",
  "first_page_order": 781,
  "last_page_order": 784
}