{
  "id": 8624738,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. J. C. PHELPS et al. v. D. C. HICKS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Phelps v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1947-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "sha256": "7cdcc99b0a9021c747669fbfe0474d76c32901478bb64eb2d15f7503fe9b39e0",
    "simhash": "1:02a4cd580e9301cb",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. J. C. PHELPS et al. v. D. C. HICKS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe decision here is controlled by what is said in No. 451, State ex rel. Amick v. Lancaster, ante, 157. That case dealt with a \u201cTown Liquor Control Store\u201d in Louisburg; this one with a similar store in Franklinton. There is no difference in principle between the two cases.\nThe judgment of dismissal in the present case will be also upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "(7. M. Beam and Hill Yarborough for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "H. 0. Kearney for defendants, Cheatham, Hicks, Parker, Bose, and May, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. J. C. PHELPS et al. v. D. C. HICKS et al.\n(Filed 5 November, 1947.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Nimocks, J., in Chambers at Louisburg, 22 September, 1947. From EbaNKLIN.\nCivil action in the name of the State on relation of citizens of Franklin County to padlock premises used in operation of \u201cTown Liquor Control Store\u201d and to enjoin its maintenance as a nuisance.\nPursuant to Chap. 911, Session Laws of 1947, a \u201cTown Liquor Control Store\u201d in the Town of Eranklinton was authorized by vote of the people, and is now being operated in a building owned or managed by D. C. Hicks and leased by him to the \u201cTown of Eranklinton Board of Alcoholic Control\u201d for such purposes.\nIt is alleged that the Act of Assembly under which the defendants have established, and are now operating, the Town Liquor Control Store in question is unconstitutional and all proceedings thereunder are perforce illegal and void. Hence, the plaintiffs invoke the provisions of Gr. S., 19-1 and 19-2, to have the store declared an offense against public morals, i.e., a nuisance, and its operation as such abated.\nFrom judgment dismissing the action with costs, the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.\n(7. M. Beam and Hill Yarborough for plaintiffs, appellants.\nH. 0. Kearney for defendants, Cheatham, Hicks, Parker, Bose, and May, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 204,
  "last_page_order": 205
}