{
  "id": 8553483,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK ATLAS, RAYMOND L. RIDGE, and GERTRUDE HUARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Atlas",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7212SC811",
  "first_page": "99",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 99"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 S.E. 2d 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S.E. 2d 5",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 236",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557715
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 418",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564893
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0322-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 4079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20596471068390473
    },
    "sha256": "6f223bd3b192f2113d4ae2ed389fd8ff4e2df9756f17c35864f9fbd24dfa3661",
    "simhash": "1:1d5ba2c9a01d1dca",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Brock concurs.",
      "Judge Campbell dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK ATLAS, RAYMOND L. RIDGE, and GERTRUDE HUARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThe facts are not in dispute: On Sunday, 5 March 1972, defendants sold various items of clothing and wearing apparel while employed at Treasure City, a place of business owned by Whitney Stores, Inc. and located in Cumberland County outside the corporate limits and jurisdiction of any municipality. Section IA of the ordinance in question provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, or offer or expose for sale on a Sunday, any clothing and wearing apparel, clothing accessories, and other enumerated items.\nThe principal question presented on this appeal is whether the court erred in overruling defendants\u2019 motions to quash the warrants, made on the ground that the ordinance under which defendants were charged is unconstitutional. The constitutionality of this ordinance was considered by the Supreme Court in an action brought in 1970 by defendants\u2019 employer and other parties. Whitney Stores v. Clark, 277 N.C. 322, 177 S.E. 2d 418. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of the Superior Court which had \u201c \u2018adjudged and declared\u2019 the ordinance \u2018to be constitutional and in all respects valid,\u2019 \u201d and noted that the ordinance was essentially the same as ordinances upheld in Kresge v. Tomlinson, and Arlan\u2019s Dept. Store v. Tomlinson, 275 N.C. 1, 165 S.E. 2d 236; Clark\u2019s v. West, 268 N.C. 527, 151 S.E. 2d 5; and Charles Stores v. Tucker, 263 N.C. 710, 140 S.E. 2d 370.\nUnder the authority of Whitney Stores v. Clark, supra, we overrule defendants\u2019 contention that they were charged under an unconstitutional ordinance.\nIn support of their motions to quash the warrant, defendants attempted to introduce several publications which were purportedly purchased on a Sunday from a bookstand in Cumberland County. Defendants\u2019 assignments of error challenging the exclusion of this evidence are overruled. The ordinance itself provides that newsstands may remain open on Sunday for the sale of papers, publications and other enumerated items; and also, that nothing in the ordinance \u201cshall be construed to prohibit the publication or the sale of newspapers or magazines by newsstands or newsboys.\u201d Consequently, the fact publications of any description could be purchased in Cumberland County on a Sunday was not in issue and the evidence tendered was immaterial.\nAffirmed.\nJudge Brock concurs.\nJudge Campbell dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.",
      "C. Eugene McCartha of Ervin, Horach & McCartha and J. Duane Gilliam by C. Eugene McCartha for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK ATLAS, RAYMOND L. RIDGE, and GERTRUDE HUARD\nNo. 7212SC811\n(Filed 20 December 1972)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 14; Sundays and Holidays \u2014 validity of Sunday observance law \u2014 denial of motion to quash warrant\nThe trial court properly overruled defendants\u2019 motions to quash warrants against them made on the ground that the ordinance under which they were charged requiring observance of Sunday as a uniform day of rest in the county was unconstitutional.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 14; Sundays and Holidays \u2014 sale of clothing on Sunday \u2014 evidence of other Sunday sales properly excluded\nIn a trial where defendants were charged with selling items of clothing on Sunday in violation of an ordinance prohibiting such sales on that day, publications purportedly purchased on a Sunday from a bookstand in the county were properly excluded from evidence, as the ordinance itself specifically provided that newsstands could remain open on Sunday.\nJudge Campbell dissents.\nAppeal by defendants from Godwin, Special Judge, 17 July 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.\nDefendants were convicted in the District Court of Cumberland County of violating a county ordinance, adopted pursuant to authority conferred by G.S. 153-9 (55), and entitled \u201cAn Ordinance Concerning the Observance of Sunday as a Uniform Day of Rest in Cumberland County.\u201d Defendants appealed to the Superior Court where they were again convicted. They appeal here from judgments entered in the Superior Court.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.\nC. Eugene McCartha of Ervin, Horach & McCartha and J. Duane Gilliam by C. Eugene McCartha for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0099-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 125
}