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 and any other person from further maintaining the nuisance at the place complained of, and the defendant from maintaining such nuisance elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this State. Lewd matter, illegal alcoholic beverages, gambling paraphernalia, or substances proscribed under the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act shall be destroyed and not be sold.
Such order may also require the effectual closing of the place against its use thereafter for the purpose of conducting any such nuisance.
The provisions of this Article, relating to the closing of a place with respect to obscene or lewd matter, shall not apply in any order of the court to any theatre or motion picture establishment which does not, in the regular, predominant, and ordinary course of its business, show or demonstrate lewd films or motion pictures, as defined in this Article, but any such establishment may be permanently enjoined from showing such film judicially determined to be obscene hereunder and such film or motion picture shall be destroyed and all proceeds and moneys received therefrom, after the issuance of a preliminary injunction, forfeited. (Pub. Loc. 1913, c. 761, s. 29; 1919, c. 288; C.S., s. 3184; 1977, c. 819, s. 6; 1981, c. 412, s. 4; c. 747, s. 66.)
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc., 250 S.E.2d 603 (N.C. 1979).
· cites it 22× “It argues that the court was required to prohibit the sale of matter depicting any genitals, enlarged or not, because of the mandates of G.S. 19-5, which reads in part: "If the existence of a nuisance is admitted or established.”
Fehlhaber v. State of North Carolina, 445 F. Supp. 130 (E.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 20× “Defendants’ contrary assertion is that “the trial court may draft an injunctive order which goes further than allowing an injunction against specific matters adjudicated to be obscene .”
State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Sherard, 243 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 19-5. The trial court upon motion by original defendants recognized its error and corrected its original order of 29 April 1976 with its order of 3 May 1976.”
Harrell v. Whisenant, 281 S.E.2d 453 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“…“permanent employees,” ie., those employees in service beyond a six month probationary period. See Newton City Code §§ 19-5 and 19-8.”
North Carolina Ex Rel. Taylor v. Carolina Racing Ass'n, 84 S.E.2d 390 (N.C. 1954).
“Tbe court may, if tbe owner appears and pays all costs of tbe proceeding and files an approved bond conditioned tbat be will immediately abate tbe nuisance and prevent its re-establishment within one year and satisfies tbe court of bis good faith, cancel tbe order of abatement…”
State Ex Rel. Albright v. Arellano, 599 S.E.2d 415 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19-5 (2003). All personal property, including money and other considerations, declared to be a nuisance under .”
State ex rel. Brown v. Smith, 328 S.E.2d 810 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19-5 (1983) is the particular statute which controls our decision in this case.”
State ex rel. Bowman v. Fipps, 266 N.C. 535 (N.C. 1966).
“Counsel for plaintiff stressfully contends that the operation on the premises of a nuisance as defined by G.”
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.