Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1916–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Keith v. . Lockhartgreen2 sentences1998It has long been established that “[i]f by striking out a void exception, proviso, or other restrictive clause, the remainder, by reason of its generality, will have a broader scope as to subject or territory, its operation is not in accord with the legislative intent, and the whole would be affected and made void by the invalidity of such part.” Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N.C. 451, 458, 88 S.E. 640, 643 (1916) (holding that a discriminatory provision of a tax levy could not be severed) (quoting 1 J.G. 1998It has long been established that “[i]f by striking out a void exception, proviso, or other restrictive clause, the remainder, by reason of its generality, will have a broader scope as to subject or territory, its operation is not in accord with the legislative intent, and the whole would be affected and made void by the invalidity of such part.” Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N.C. 451, 458, 88 S.E. 640, 643 (1916) (holding that a discriminatory provision of a tax levy could not be severed) (quoting 1 J.G. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commissioners v. . Boring
green
2 sentences1976“Where a part of a statute is invalid, the remainder, if valid, will be enforced, provided it is complete in itself and capable of being executed in accordance with the apparent legislative intent; but if the void clause cannot be rejected without causing the statute to enact what the Legislature did not intend, the whole of it must fall. . . . ‘Even in a case where legal provisions may be severed in order to save, the rule applies only when it is plain that the Legislature would have enacted the legislation with the unconstitutional provisions eliminated.’ ” Commissioners v. Boring, 175 N.C. 1976“Where a part of a statute is invalid, the remainder, if valid, will be enforced, provided it is complete in itself and capable of being executed in accordance with the apparent legislative intent; but if the void clause cannot be rejected without causing the statute to enact what the Legislature did not intend, the whole of it must fall. . . . ‘Even in a case where legal provisions may be severed in order to save, the rule applies only when it is plain that the Legislature would have enacted the legislation with the unconstitutional provisions eliminated.’ ” Commissioners v. Boring, 175 N.C. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Riggsbee v. . Town of Durham
neutral
2 sentences1916The doctrine so stated has been applied in this State in numerous cases, Greene v. Owen , 125 N.C. 212 ; Riggsbee v. Durham , 94 N.C. 800 , and is not infrequently extended to provisos which are unconstitutional; but, recurring to the principle and the limitations upon it, the position can never include a case such as this, where "to strike out the offending proviso would result in enlarging the effect and operation *Page 522 of the body of the law." This position is very well stated in 1 Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), sec. 306, as follows: "If by striking out a void exceptio 1916The doctrine so stated has been applied in this State in numerous cases, Greene v. Owen, 125 N. C., 212 ; Riggsbee v. Durham, 94 N. C., 800 , and is not infrequently extended to provisos which are unconstitutional; but, recurring to the principle and the limitations upon it, the position can never include a case such as this, where “to strike out the offending proviso would result in enlarging the effect and operation of the body of the law.” This position is very well stated in 1 Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), sec. 306, as follows: “If by striking out a void exception, provi | 1 | 1916–1916 |
State Ex Rel. Greene v. Owen
neutral
2 sentences1916The doctrine so stated has been applied in this State in numerous cases, Greene v. Owen , 125 N.C. 212 ; Riggsbee v. Durham , 94 N.C. 800 , and is not infrequently extended to provisos which are unconstitutional; but, recurring to the principle and the limitations upon it, the position can never include a case such as this, where "to strike out the offending proviso would result in enlarging the effect and operation *Page 522 of the body of the law." This position is very well stated in 1 Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), sec. 306, as follows: "If by striking out a void exceptio 1916The doctrine so stated has been applied in this State in numerous cases, Greene v. Owen, 125 N. C., 212 ; Riggsbee v. Durham, 94 N. C., 800 , and is not infrequently extended to provisos which are unconstitutional; but, recurring to the principle and the limitations upon it, the position can never include a case such as this, where “to strike out the offending proviso would result in enlarging the effect and operation of the body of the law.” This position is very well stated in 1 Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), sec. 306, as follows: “If by striking out a void exception, provi | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.