Wherever a nuisance is kept, maintained, or exists, as defined in this Article, the Attorney General, district attorney, county, municipality, or any private citizen of the county may maintain a civil action in the name of the State of North Carolina to abate a nuisance under this Chapter, perpetually to enjoin all persons from maintaining the same, and to enjoin the use of any structure or thing adjudged to be a nuisance under this Chapter; provided, however, that no private citizen may maintain such action where the alleged nuisance involves the illegal possession or sale of obscene or lewd matter.
Upon request from the Attorney General, district attorney, county or municipality, including the sheriff or chief of police of any county or municipality, the Alcohol Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Public Safety or any other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction may investigate alleged public nuisances and make recommendations regarding actions to abate the public nuisances.
If an action is instituted by a private person, the complainant shall execute a bond prior to the issuance of a restraining order or a temporary injunction, with good and sufficient surety to be approved by the court or clerk thereof, in the sum of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), to secure to the party enjoined the damages he may sustain if such action is wrongfully brought, not prosecuted to final judgment, or is dismissed, or is not maintained, or if it is finally decided that the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ought not to have been granted. The party enjoined shall have recourse against said bond for all damages suffered, including damages to his property, person, or character and including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by him in making defense to said action. No bond shall be required of the prosecuting attorney, the Attorney General, county, or municipality, and no action shall be maintained against any public official or public entity, their employees, or agents for investigating or maintaining an action for abatement of a nuisance under the provisions of this Chapter. (1977, c. 819, s. 4; 1995, c. 528, s. 1; 1999-371, s. 5; 2011-145, s. 19.1(g), (n); 2014-100, s. 17.1(xxx); 2019-203, s. 9(a).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
Moore v. City of Creedmoor, 460 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
Moore v. City of Creedmoor, 460 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 18× “1994) and N.C.Gen.Stat. § 19-2.1 (1983). High was no longer a Commissioner on the date the Resolution issued and was not involved in its passage.”
State on Relation of City of Albemarle v. Nance, 831 S.E.2d 605 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 10× “As municipal corporations, cities are required to exercise these powers as are delegated and provided in statutes by ordinance or resolution of the city council.”
Whitfield v. Gilchrist, 497 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1998).
· cites it 3× “§ 19-8 indicates that the legislature contemplated only one noncontractual method of payment for attorneys who undertake to maintain, on behalf of anyone, a civil action to abate a nuisance as authorized by N.C.G.S. § 19-2.1. Under N.C.G.S. § 19-8, a prevailing party is awarded,…”
State Ex Rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc., 250 S.E.2d 603 (N.C. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Besides obscenity, it deals with places used for purposes of "assignation, prostitution, gambling, illegal possession or sale of intoxicating liquors [and] illegal possession or sale of narcotic drugs.”
State Ex Rel. Gilchrist v. Hurley, 269 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, they charge that G.S. § 19-2.1 permits the State, acting through the district attorney, to deprive individuals of property without due process of law because the State is not required to post a bond as security against the possibility that a temporary restraining…”
State Ex Rel. Onslow Cnty. v. Mercer, 496 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19-2.1 (1991). Consequently, Onslow County could not have brought an action to abate a public nuisance at the time the Maynor action was commenced.”
State v. Felts, 339 S.E.2d 99 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “] Similarly, G.S. 19-2.1 provides that “[w]herever a nuisance is kept, maintained, or exists, as defined in this Article, the Attorney General, district attorney, or any private citizen of the county may maintain a civil action in the name of the State of North Carolina to abate…”
State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Sherard, 243 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “19-2 was repealed effective 1 August 1977, and replaced by G.S. 19-2.1 through G.S. 19-2.5, which more sharply defines padlock procedures and the authority of the trial court to enter the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.”
State Ex Rel. Albright v. Arellano, 599 S.E.2d 415 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19-2.1 (2003). If the existence of a nuisance is admitted or established in an action as provided for in this Chapter an order of abatement shall be entered as a part of the judgment in the case, which judgment and order shall perpetually enjoin the defendant…”
Fehlhaber v. State of North Carolina, 445 F. Supp. 130 (E.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 4× “To instigate enforcement under the statute, the attorney general or a local district attorney (Section 19-2.1) is authorized to file in superior court a verified complaint alleging the facts constituting the nuisance (Section 19-2.”
Paul L. Whitfield, P.A. v. Gilchrist, 485 S.E.2d 61 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19-2.1 (1996). The State, through the district attorney, has not only the authority, but also as an advocate of the State’s interest in protecting society, an implied duty to bring public nuisance actions.”
State of NC (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “§§ 160A-11, 160A-12 (2017). As municipal corporations, cities are required to exercise these powers as are delegated and provided in statutes by ordinance or resolution of the city council.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.