{
  "id": 8657158,
  "name": "STATE v. JIM MUSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Muse",
  "decision_date": "1921-05-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 N.C. 506"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "180 N. C., 744",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654888
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0744-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1632,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3194038666428487e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6261820669853725
    },
    "sha256": "2cb31e73a95ac42a6e5c30658ed6005ff2972c316b6c8235b01714bf8253336c",
    "simhash": "1:50825e3441921a5b",
    "word_count": 254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:48.388810+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JIM MUSE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed on authority of S. v. Fore, 180 N. C., 744. A State statute in further-anee of, and not in conflict with, the Federal prohibition law may be declared a valid exercise of the police power of the State and is sanctioned, in express terms, by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Geo. S. Reynolds for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JIM MUSE.\n(Filed 25 May, 1921.)\nIntoxicating Liquors \u2014 Spirituous Liquors \u2014 Statutes\u2014Constitutional Law \u2014Federal Constitution \u2014 Federal Statutes.\nA State statute in furtherance of, and not in conflict with, the Federal Prohibition Law, may be declared a valid exercise of the police power of' the State, expressly sanctioned by the Eighteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States.\nAppeal by defendant from McElroy, J., at March Term,' 1921, of BTJNCOMBE.\nCriminal indictment charging the defendant with transporting, receiving, keeping on hand for sale and selling spirituous and intoxicating-liquors, contrary to the form of the statute in such eases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State. The evidence of\u2019 guilt was direct and positive.\n\u201cThe defendant demurred to the jurisdiction of the court for that the-Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealed all State laws regarding the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor within the United' States.\u201d This is the defendant\u2019s only exception.\nFrom a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nGeo. S. Reynolds for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 559
}