{
  "id": 8620993,
  "name": "D. L. LATHAM et al. v. JAMES H. HARRIS, Sheriff of Beaufort County",
  "name_abbreviation": "Latham v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "802",
  "last_page": "803",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 802"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N. C., 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217893
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1553,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5046715916883656e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2825139612386668
    },
    "sha256": "70f1ad08755db97a21e5344a681c93f594cc9a55d1b39d5a8cbb5bac15a2934e",
    "simhash": "1:2013af341cb76c68",
    "word_count": 238
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. L. LATHAM et al. v. JAMES H. HARRIS, Sheriff of Beaufort County."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nPlaintiffs, by this action to restrain and enjoin defendant, sheriff of Beaufort County, from enforcing a criminal statute in said county, seek to present for decision the question as to the constitutionality of the statute. It has been repeatedly held that this cannot be done. Moore v. Bell, 191 N. C., 305, and cases therein cited. There are no sufficient allegations in the complaint that property rights of plaintiffs are or will be affected by the enforcement of the statute to bring the action within the principle recently restated in Angelo v. City of Winston-Salem, 193 N. C., 207.\nThe temporary restraining order was improvidently made. The judgment dissolving this order and dismissing the action is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ward & Grimes for plaintiffs.",
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash and Harry McMullan for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. L. LATHAM et al. v. JAMES H. HARRIS, Sheriff of Beaufort County.\n(Filed 26 October, 1927.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment of Midyetie, J., rendered at Chambers, on 3 September, 1921.\nAffirmed.\nPlaintiffs by this action seek to have defendant, sheriff of Beaufort County, restrained and enjoined from enforcing in bis county a criminal statute \u2014 chapter 349, Public-Local Laws 1925 \u2014 against them and others who have violated or who may hereafter violate its provisions, upon their allegation that said statute is void and unconstitutional. -\nFrom judgment dissolving a temporary restraining order theretofore issued, and dismissing tbe action, plaintiffs appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nWard & Grimes for plaintiffs.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash and Harry McMullan for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0802-01",
  "first_page_order": 870,
  "last_page_order": 871
}