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.
14 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1885–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lockwood v. McCaskillgreen2 sentences1994Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754, 758 , 136 S.E.2d 67, 69 (1964) ("`A proviso should be construed together with the enacting clause or body of the act, with a view to giving effect to each and to carrying out the intention of the legislature as manifested in the entire act and acts in pari materia. 1994Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754, 758 , 136 S.E.2d 67, 69 (1964) ("`A proviso should be construed together with the enacting clause or body of the act, with a view to giving effect to each and to carrying out the intention of the legislature as manifested in the entire act and acts in pari materia. | 1 | 2 |
Propst v. Railroadgreen2 sentences1987In Propst v. Railroad, 139 N.C. 397, 398 , 51 S.E. 920, 921 (1905), our Supreme Court provided the following on the purpose of a proviso: The general office of a proviso is either to except something from the enacting clause or to qualify or restrain its generality or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, and usually it is not permitted to enlarge the meaning of the enactment to which it is appended, so as itself to operate as a substantive enactment. 1987In Propst v. Railroad, 139 N.C. 397, 398 , 51 S.E. 920, 921 (1905), our Supreme Court provided the following on the purpose of a proviso: The general office of a proviso is either to except something from the enacting clause or to qualify or restrain its generality or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, and usually it is not permitted to enlarge the meaning of the enactment to which it is appended, so as itself to operate as a substantive enactment. | 1 | 2 |
Robbins v. City of Charlottegreen2 sentences1994A strict but reasonable construction is to be given to the proviso so as to take out of the enacting clause only those cases which are fairly within the terms of the proviso.' 82 C.J.S., Statutes 381(b)(1)"); Robbins v. Charlotte, 241 N.C. 197, 200 , 84 S.E.2d 814, 816-17 (1954). 1994A strict but reasonable construction is to be given to the proviso so as to take out of the enacting clause only those cases which are fairly within the terms of the proviso.' 82 C.J.S., Statutes 381(b)(1)"); Robbins v. Charlotte, 241 N.C. 197, 200 , 84 S.E.2d 814, 816-17 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. . Lanier
neutral
2 sentences1886Pro., Sec. 376; State v. Heaton , 81 N.C. 542 ; State v. Lanier , 88 N.C. 658 . 1886Pro., §376; State v. Heaton, 81 N. C., 542 ; State v. Lanier, 88 N. C., 658 . | 3 | 1885–1886 |
State v. . Patterson
green
2 sentences1947In the case of State v. Patterson , 98 N.C. 660 , the Supreme Court of this State held invalid Chapter 113 of the Private Laws of 1887 incorporating a municipality in Cabarrus County because the Act failed to contain the enacting clause, "The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact," as required by Article II, Section 21, of the State Constitution which provides as follows: "The style of the acts shall be: `The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact.'" The Court said: "In the case before us, what purports to be the statute in question has no enacting clause, and nothing appears as a s 1947In the case of State v. Patterson, 98 N. C., 660 , the Supreme Court of this State held invalid Chapter 113 of the Private Laws of 1887 incorporating a municipality in Cabarrus County because the Act failed to contain the enacting clause, “The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact,” as required by Article II, Section 21, of the State Constitution which provides as follows : “The style of the acts shall be: 'The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact.’ ” The Court said: “In the case before us, what purports to be the statute in question has no enacting clause, and nothing appears as | 2 | 1947–1947 |
State v. Heaton
neutral
2 sentences1886Pro., Sec. 376; State v. Heaton , 81 N.C. 542 ; State v. Lanier , 88 N.C. 658 . 1886Pro., §376; State v. Heaton, 81 N. C., 542 ; State v. Lanier, 88 N. C., 658 . | 2 | 1886–1886 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2017App. 310 , 315, 560 S.E.2d 852 , 856 ("While the enacting clause is required for the act to become law, it does not itself become law, nor is that required to be the case."), appeal dismissed , 355 N.C. 499 , 564 S.E.2d 230 (2002). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2017App. 310 , 315, 560 S.E.2d 852 , 856 ("While the enacting clause is required for the act to become law, it does not itself become law, nor is that required to be the case."), appeal dismissed , 355 N.C. 499 , 564 S.E.2d 230 (2002). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Phillips
neutral
1 sentence2017App. 310 , 315, 560 S.E.2d 852 , 856 ("While the enacting clause is required for the act to become law, it does not itself become law, nor is that required to be the case."), appeal dismissed , 355 N.C. 499 , 564 S.E.2d 230 (2002). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. . Hege
neutral
2 sentences1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived.” S. v. Connor, 142 N. C., 700 ; S. v. Moore, 166 N. C., 284 ; S. v. Hege, 194 N. C., 526 . 1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived." S. v. Connor , 142 N.C. 700 ; S. v. Moore , 166 N.C. 284 ; S. v. Hege , 194 N.C. 526 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
State v. . Moore
green
2 sentences1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived.” S. v. Connor, 142 N. C., 700 ; S. v. Moore, 166 N. C., 284 ; S. v. Hege, 194 N. C., 526 . 1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived." S. v. Connor , 142 N.C. 700 ; S. v. Moore , 166 N.C. 284 ; S. v. Hege , 194 N.C. 526 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
State v. . Connor
green
2 sentences1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived.” S. v. Connor, 142 N. C., 700 ; S. v. Moore, 166 N. C., 284 ; S. v. Hege, 194 N. C., 526 . 1928But where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, then it is held that the exception must be negatived." S. v. Connor , 142 N.C. 700 ; S. v. Moore , 166 N.C. 284 ; S. v. Hege , 194 N.C. 526 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Barringer v. . Barringer
neutral
1 sentence1913But it has been expressly held in Barringer v. Barringer , 69 N.C. 179 , that the conclusion is irresistible from the language of the statutes, that husbands and wives are incompetent to give evidence only where they testify "for or against each other" in the class of cases specified in the proviso to Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 341 (Revisal, sec. 1636), and that construing that section so as to give full effect to the enacting clause and the proviso, it applies to suits where they alone are parties, as well as to those where a third party is concerned, as in our case, with the restriction i | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Rice v. . Keith
green
1 sentence1913And to the same effect is Rice v. Keith , 63 N.C. 319 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
State v. Goulden.
neutral
1 sentence1911“The office of a proviso generally is, either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify *586 or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it extending to eases not intended to be brought within its purview.” Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes, p. 118; S. v. Goulden, 134 N. C., 743 ; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill., 195 ; and Sutton v. People, 145 Ill., 279 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Huddleston v. Francis
neutral
1 sentence1911“The office of a proviso generally is, either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify *586 or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it extending to eases not intended to be brought within its purview.” Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes, p. 118; S. v. Goulden, 134 N. C., 743 ; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill., 195 ; and Sutton v. People, 145 Ill., 279 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Sutton v. People
neutral
1 sentence1911“The office of a proviso generally is, either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify *586 or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it extending to eases not intended to be brought within its purview.” Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes, p. 118; S. v. Goulden, 134 N. C., 743 ; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 Ill., 195 ; and Sutton v. People, 145 Ill., 279 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
State Ex Rel. Scarborough v. Robinson
neutral
2 sentences1887This Court has held in Scarborough v. Robinson, supra, that the signatures of these officers affixed to the bill, passed while the Legislature was in session, was essential to make it a statute; and for the like and other reasons the enacting clause is likewise essential. 1887This Court has held in Scarborough v. Robinson, supra, that the signatures of these officers affixed to the bill, passed while the Legislature was in session, was essential to make it a statute; and for the like and other reasons the enacting clause is likewise essential. | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.