In re Redwine

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In re Redwine

322 S.E.2d 769, 312 N.C. 482, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1809

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 4, 1984

DocketNo. 137PA84

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 322 S.E.2d 769 (In re Redwine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Redwine, 322 S.E.2d 769, 312 N.C. 482, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1809 (N.C. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellant Redwine argues that N.C.G.S. 20-139.1(el) is unconstitutional and therefore the superior court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling him to admit the chemical analyst’s affidavit into evidence. We need not reach this issue, however, since we hold, for another reason, that the superior court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus in the present case. As the constitutional issue sought to be reviewed in this appeal is presently before this Court in another case, we find it unnecessary to treat the appeal in this case as a petition for writ of mandamus. See State v. Surles; State v. Barnes; State v. Williams and State v. Sutton, 55 N.C. App. 179, 284 S.E. 2d 738 (1981).

The superior court judge misconstrued his authority to issue the writ of mandamus to a judge of the General Court of Justice. A judge of the superior court has no authority or jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to a district court judge. Those remedies are reserved by the Constitution of North Carolina, article IV, section 12(1), to the Supreme Court.

As the superior court judge had no authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the judge of the district court, the writ was void. This opinion does not affect the authority or jurisdiction of judges of the superior court to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition to parties other than justices and judges of the General Court of Justice.

The writ of mandamus is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellant Redwine argues that N.C.G.S. 20-139.1(el) is unconstitutional and therefore the superior court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling him to admit the chemical analyst’s affidavit into evidence. We need not reach this issue, however, since we hold, for another reason, that the superior court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus in the present case. As the constitutional issue sought to be reviewed in this appeal is presently before this Court in another case, we find it unnecessary to treat the appeal in this case as a petition for writ of mandamus. See State v. Surles; State v. Barnes; State v. Williams and State v. Sutton, 55 N.C. App. 179, 284 S.E. 2d 738 (1981).

The superior court judge misconstrued his authority to issue the writ of mandamus to a judge of the General Court of Justice. A judge of the superior court has no authority or jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to a district court judge. Those remedies are reserved by the Constitution of North Carolina, article IV, section 12(1), to the Supreme Court.

As the superior court judge had no authority to issue the writ of mandamus to the judge of the district court, the writ was void. This opinion does not affect the authority or jurisdiction of judges of the superior court to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition to parties other than justices and judges of the General Court of Justice.

The writ of mandamus is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 S.E.2d 769, 312 N.C. 482, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-redwine-nc-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack